M/S R.S. OVERSEAS vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ICD, TKD

Judgment text excerpt

$~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 22nd May, 2025 + W.P.(C) 6222/2025 & CM APPLs. 28435/2025, 28436/2025 M/S R.S. OVERSEAS .....Petitioner Through: Dr. G. K. Sarkar, Malabika Sarkar, Prashant Srivastava, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ICD, TKD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harsh Singhal & Mr. Suraj Shekhar Singh, Advs. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31st January, 2025 (hereinafter “impugned order”), which arises out of the Show Cause Notice dated 14th January, 2021 (hereinafter “the SCN”). 3. The submissions raised by the Petitioner is twofold: i) Firstly, that the SCN had been issued after five years and is hence not maintainable; ii) Secondly, that the adjudication has been delayed for a period of five years. 4. Mr. Sarkar, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the decision in W.P. (C) 4831/2021 titled M/s. VOS Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6222/2025 Page 1 of 9 By:KESHAV Signing Date:26.05.2025 20:37:32 Principal Additional Director General & Anr., to argue that the delayed adjudication ought to result in the quashing of the SCN itself. 5. Mr. Naushad, ld. Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, on the other hand submits that in this case, the Petitioner had sought adjournments repeatedly and thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned order. He further submits that the question of delayed adjudication has already been considered by this Court