ANOOP KUMAR GARG vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS)

Judgment text excerpt

$~24&25 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 14th November, 2025 + W.P.(C) 15945/2025, CM APPL. 65231/2025& CM APPL. 71082/2025 ANOOP KUMAR GARG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chinmaya Seth, Mr. A.K. Seth, Ms. Palak Mathur, Advs. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr. Naman Chouls& Mr. Yamit Jetley, Advs. 25 AND + W.P.(C) 15999/2025 & CM APPL. 65495/2025 RAHUL AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chinmaya Seth, Mr. A.K. Seth, Ms. Palak Mathur, Advs. versus THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr. Naman Chouls& Mr. Yamit Jetley, Advs. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present two petitions have been filed by the Petitioners under Signature Not Verified Signed By:TANISHKA W.P.(C) 15945/2025&W.P.(C) 15999/2025 Page 1 of 11 GUPTA Signing Date:18.11.2025 15:41:37 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the impugned order dated 15th July, 2025 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘CESTAT’) in Defect Diary Nos. 55133/2024 and 55131/2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’). 3. These two petitions arise out of Show Cause Notice dated 20th October, 2022 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, (hereinafter, ‘ICD’) (Tughlakhabad) (hereinafter, ‘SCN’). The allegations on the basis of intelligence from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter, ‘DRI’), Delhi Zonal Unit (hereinafter, ‘DZU’) was that three entities, were alleged to be indulging in evasion of Customs Duty, by undervaluing the imports of sanitary and bathroom fittings. The thre