Court holds that once adjudication orders are passed, writ petition is not maintainable; Petitioner must resort to statutory appellate remedy under Customs Act, 1962
In a significant ruling on October 6, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan) dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Kuku Overseas challenging the prolonged non-finalisation of provisional customs assessments and seeking release of bank guarantees. The Court held that once Orders-in-Original (adjudication orders) have been passed, the High Court's writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory appellate process provided under the Customs Act, 1962.
The petitioner, M/s Kuku Overseas, had approached the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, alleging that nine Bills of Entry filed between 2014 and 2015 remained provisionally assessed for over nine years without finalisation. The petitioner sought directions for release of bank guarantees totaling Rs. 19,19,400 and a writ of prohibition to restrain the Customs authorities from initiating finalisation proceedings.
However, the factual matrix dramatically shifted during the pendency of the writ petition. It was revealed that an Order-in-Original dated January 21, 2022, had already been passed for one of the Bills of Entry, which was not disclosed by the petitioner at the time of filing. Furthermore, two additional Orders-in-Original were passed in March and June 2026 concerning the remaining Bills of Entry. These orders included absolute confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under various provisions of the Customs Act.
The Court observed that the petitioner's primary grievance-that provisional assessments were pending-no longer held good since adjudication orders had been passed. The Court emphasized that the appropriate remedy now lay in availing the statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, which provides for appeals against adjudication orders to the Commissioner (Appeals).
Responding to the petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court's May 2, 2025 order in Union of India v. GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd., which directed deferral of matters relating to delay in adjudication, the Court clarified that the Supreme Court's direction applied in the context of pending adjudications, not cases where adjudication had already been completed. The factual and procedural positions in the present case were materially different, and no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing the statutory appellate mechanism.
The Court further criticized the petitioner for non-disclosure of the earlier adjudication order, underscoring the necessity for full and candid disclosure when invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable but granted liberty to the petitioner to file appeals against the Orders-in-Original before the statutory appellate authority. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the adjudication orders or on the delay alleged prior to the passing of those orders, leaving those issues open for consideration by the appellate forum.
This judgment reinforces the principle that where efficacious statutory remedies are available, especially in matters involving complex adjudication such as customs assessments, writ courts ordinarily refrain from exercising their jurisdiction. It also clarifies the limited scope of Supreme Court directions on delay in adjudication in the context of pending versus finalised proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Customs Act - Writ petition challenging prolonged non-finalisation of provisional assessments and seeking release of bank guarantees held not maintainable after Orders-in-Original had already been passed and efficacious statutory appeal under Section 128(1) was available - Supreme Court order in GMR Airport Infrastructure case did not require such writ petition to be kept pending where adjudication had already culminated - Non-disclosure of prior adjudication order was material.
Statutory provision(s):
Customs Act, 1962 Sections 18, 111(d), 111(m), 112(b)(i), 114AA, 128(1); Constitution of India Articles 226, 227
M/s Kuku Overseas v. Commissioner of Customs, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2991600
