Disposed¶13

Rajan Nagpal v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Mar 2025W.P.(C)/3313/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, 18.03.2025, W.P.(C) 3313/2025 & connected matters (Rajan Nagpal, Ritin Nagpal, Nitin Nagpal, M/s Kashmir Walnut Overseas Pvt Ltd, M/s United Seair Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Anr.). Keywords: alternative remedy; relegation to CESTAT; reduction of statutory pre-deposit to 3.75%; Customs Act, 1962 confiscation; walnut kernels export diverted to domestic market; Show Cause Notice 18.10.2023; Order-in-Original 31.01.2025; ICAR scientists cross-examination; Articles 226 & 227; order not a precedent; merits left open.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of: Petitioners relegated to the appellate remedy before CESTAT with liberty to raise all grounds; pre-deposit reduced to 3.75%; all pending applications disposed of. ¶13

Rajan Nagpal Vs Union of India & Anr. — Customs and Excise | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitions disposed of: Petitioners relegated to the appellate remedy before CESTAT with liberty to raise all grounds; pre-deposit reduced to 3.75%; all pending applications disposed of.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners should be relegated to the appellate remedy before CESTAT despite the substantial statutory pre-deposit, and whether the pre-deposit should be reduced. +2 more

¶50

Court's answer

The Petitioners are relegated to avail their appellate remedy against the impugned Order-in-Original before CESTAT and are free to raise all their grounds of challenge there.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The Court has not examined any of the grounds raised by the Petitioners; all objections are kept open and the merits of the matter have not been considered.

¶10

Key takeaways

In the unique facts and circumstances, following the earlier order in the connected matter involving the same petitioners, the pre-deposit for filing the appeal before CESTAT is reduced to 3.75%; this order shall not be treated as a precedent.ratio¶11
If CESTAT finds it relevant, the cross-examination of the ICAR scientists recorded before the Principal Commissioner in the connected matters may be taken into consideration in adjudicating the appeals.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Five writ petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenged an Order-in-Original (No. 01/2025/SK/Commr/ICD/Export/TKD dated 31.01.2025) of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), ICD Tughlakabad, which followed a Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2023 alleging that consignments of 'walnut kernels' meant for export were diverted to the domestic market and that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. Following its earlier order dated 20.02.2025 in W.P.(C) 2201/2025 (Nitin Nagpal v. Union of India & Anr.) involving the same parties, the Division Bench (Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.; judgment delivered orally by Prathiba M. Singh, J.) relegated the Petitioners to their appellate remedy before CESTAT, left all objections open, and expressly declined to examine the merits. In the unique facts, and expressly not as a precedent, the pre-deposit for filing the appeals was reduced to 3.75%. The Court observed that CESTAT may, if it finds relevant, consider the cross-examination of the ICAR scientists recorded before the Principal Commissioner in the connected matters.

¶1

$~74, 75, 90 to 92

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 18^th March, 2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 3313/2025 & CM APPL. 15627/2025 RAJAN NAGPAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A. R. Madhav Rao, Mr. Krishna Rao, Ms. Soumya Panda & Mr. Mukunda Rao, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushkaa Arora, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Sagar Belval, Advocate for UOI. (Mob: 9810570295)

¶7

Mr. Gibran Naushad, Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC with Mr. Harsh Singhal, Advocate.

¶8

¶9

+ W.P.(C) 3324/2025 & CM APPL. 15731/2025

¶10

RITIN NAGPAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A. R. Madhav Rao, Mr. Krishna Rao, Ms. Soumya Panda & Mr. Mukunda Rao, Advocates

¶11

versus

¶12

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents

¶13

Through: Ms. Anushkaa Arora, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Sagar Belval, Advocate for UOI. (Mob: 9810570295)

¶14

Mr. Ashish Goyal, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Anurag Singhal, Advocate for UOI (Mob: 9811029221)

¶15

Mr. Gibran Naushad, Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC with Mr. Harsh Singhal, Advocate

¶16

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

W.P.(C) 3313/2025 & connected matters

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.03.2025 22:49:43

¶21

W.P.(C) 3343/2025 & CM APPL. 15784/2025 NITIN NAGPAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A. R. Madhav Rao, Mr. Krishna Rao, Ms. Soumya Panda & Mr. Mukunda Rao, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushkaa Arora, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Sagar Belval, Advocate for UOI. (Mob: 9810570295) Mr. Ashish Goyal, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Anurag Singhal, Advocate for UOI (Mob: 9811029221) Mr. Gibran Naushad, Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC with Mr. Harsh Singhal, Advocate

¶22

¶23

W.P.(C) 3345/2025 & CM APPL. 15786/2025

¶24

M/S KASHMIR WALNUT OVERSEAS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A. R. Madhav Rao, Mr. Krishna Rao, Ms. Soumya Panda & Mr. Mukunda Rao, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushkaa Arora, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Sagar Belval, Advocate for UOI. (Mob: 9810570295) Mr. Gibran Naushad, Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC with Mr. Harsh Singhal, Advocate. Mr. Ramjee Pandey, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, SPC for UOI with Ms. Kalpana Jha, Adv.

¶25

¶26

+ W.P.(C) 3346/2025 & CM APPL. 15787/2025

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

W.P.(C) 3313/2025 & connected matters

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.03.2025 22:49:43

¶31

M/S UNITED SEAIR PVT LTD .....Petitioner

¶32

Through: Mr. A. R. Madhav Rao, Mr. Krishna Rao, Ms. Soumya Panda & Mr. Mukunda Rao, Advocates

¶33

versus

¶34

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushkaa Arora, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Sagar Belval, Advocate for UOI. (Mob: 9810570295)

¶35

Mr. Gibran Naushad, Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC with Mr. Harsh Singhal, Advocate

¶36

CORAM:

¶37

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶38

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶39

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶40

The present petitions have been filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned Order-in-Original bearing no 01/2025/SK/Commr/ICD/Export/TKD dated 31^st January, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi.

¶41

The brief background is that the Petitioners i.e., Mr. Rajan Nagpal, Mr. Nitin Nagpal and Mr. Ritin Nagpal, are the Directors of M/s Kashmir Walnut Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Gangandeep Bhari is the Director of M/s United Seair Pvt. Ltd., the freight forwarder which is connected with the Petitioner firm.

¶42

The case of the Petitioners is that various consignments of ‘walnut kernels’ were to be exported by the Petitioners. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 18^th October, 2023 against the Petitioners, raising various demands.

¶43

Page 3 of 6

¶44

W.P.(C) 3313/2025 & connected matters

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.03.2025 22:49:43

¶47

The allegation in the said Show Cause Notice was that the goods which were imported were not exported back and were in fact, diverted to the domestic market. Pursuant to the said Show Cause Notice, an Order-in-Original has been passed which is impugned before this Court.

¶48

As per the Order-in-Original, the goods of the Petitioners are in contravention to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same are liable to be confiscated.

¶49

The submission of Mr. Rao, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners is two fold. One that the scientists from Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter ‘ ICAR’ ) were not permitted to be cross-examined and second that even the cross-examination of the said scientists before the Principal Commissioner, in a similar case, though filed on record, has not been considered while passing the impugned order.

¶50

Ld. counsel further submits that the Show Cause Notice has been reproduced in the Order-in-Original and there is no consideration of the stand of the Petitioners in the said order. In addition, it is submitted that if the Petitioners are relegated to the appellate remedy before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), a substantial amount of predeposit would have to be made by them. Reliance is placed on an order passed in a similar case involving the same parties in W.P.(C) 2201/2025 and connected matters in which the pre-deposit was reduced to 3.75%.

¶51

Ld. counsel for the Respondents submits that the pre-deposit is statutorily prescribed. 9. After having heard the ld. Counsels for the parties, the Court is of the view that the Petitioners ought to be relegated to avail of the remedy against the impugned Order-in-Original before the CESTAT, as done in the

¶52

Page 4 of 6

¶53

W.P.(C) 3313/2025 & connected matters

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.03.2025 22:49:43

¶56

connected case. In W.P.(C) 2201/2025 titled ‘ Nitin Nagpal v. Union of India

¶57

& Anr.’ this Court vide order dated 20^th February 2025, had directed as under:

¶58

“7. After having heard the ld. Counsels for the parties, the Court is of the view that the Petitioners ought to be relegated to avail of the remedy against the impugned Order-in-Original before the CESTAT. This Court has not examined any of the grounds which have been raised by the Petitioners. All objections are kept open. The Petitioners are free to raise all their grounds of challenge to the impugned order before CESTAT.

¶59

8. Considering the nature of the matter and the submissions made today, in the unique facts and circumstances of these cases, the pre-deposit for filing the appeal is reduced to 3.75%. This order shall not be treated as a precedent”

¶60

Accordingly, the Petitioners are relegated to avail of their appellate remedy before CESTAT. The Petitioners are free to raise all their grounds of challenge to the impugned order before CESTAT. This Court has not examined any of the grounds which have been raised by the Petitioners. All objections are kept open. If the CESTAT finds it relevant, the crossexamination of the ICAR scientists before the Principal Commissioner in the connected matters may be taken into consideration for adjudication of the appeals.

¶61

Considering the nature of the matter and the submissions made today, in the unique facts and circumstances of these cases, following the order passed in the similar matter involving the same petitioners, the pre-deposit for filing the appeal is reduced to 3.75%. This order shall not be treated as a precedent.

¶62