Customs Department sought condonation of a 402-day delay in appealing a CESTAT remand order concerning DRI show cause notice jurisdiction. In view of the Supreme Court's decision in the Mangli Impex/Canon India review upholding DRI competence, the Department withdrew the appeal to pursue fresh adjudication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.P.(MD) No.18786 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.M.P.(MD)No.18786 of 2024 in C.M.A.(MD)No.SR17945 of 2019
The Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 628 004.
... Petitioner
-Vs-
Pathi Prints, No.48/1, Madiwala Post, Kudlu, Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 068.
... Respondent
PRAYER in C.M.P.(MD)No.18786 of 2024 : Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 402 days in filing the civil miscellaneous appeal in CMA(MD)No.SR17945 of 2019.
PRAYER in C.M.A.(MD)No.SR17945 of 2019 : Appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, to allow the appeal and set aside the Final Order No. 43195 of 2017 dated 19.12.2017 passed by the CESTAT.
1/5
C.M.P.(MD) No.18786 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilipkumar Senior Standing Counsel
ORDER
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND R.POORNIMA , J.
For the alleged evasion of duty by undervaluation, the Director of Revenue Intelligence has issued a show cause notice to the respondent on 22.11.2004. Pursuant to that, the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, has passed the order in original on 27.01.2011. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeal), Tiruchirappalli, has passed the order in Appeal No. 142/2011, dated 27.01.2011. The said order in Appeal No.142/2011 is the subject matter before the CESTAT. Since preliminary objection regarding competency of DRI officials causing show cause under the Customs Act, 1962, was raised by the respondent in the said appeal, the CESTAT, after considering the law prevailing at that point of time, had disposed of the appeal with the following observations:-
“By following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSNL (Supra) as well as by considering totality of facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability
2/5
C.M.P.(MD) No.18786 of 2024
of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangli Impex and then on merits of the case but by providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Till the final decision, the status quo will be maintained.”
Being aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was laid before this Court with delay of 402 days.
Court today, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned standing counsel representing the Customs Department that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disposed of Mangli Impex case holding the officials of DRI are competent to issue show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962, and also permitted the Department to adjudicate the issue on merits. Therefore, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Customs Department informs this Court that he has been instructed by the Department to withdraw the appeal with liberty to proceed with adjudication on merits as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Application petition No.400/21 filed by the Commissioner of Customs vs. Canon India Private Limited (Mangli Impex Case) . The communication from the Department dated 29.01.2025 is also placed before this Court for consideration.
3/5
C.M.P.(MD) No.18786 of 2024
withdraw the appeal and proceed with the adjudication as per the Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Application petition No.400/21 filed by the
Commissioner of Customs vs. Canon India Private Limited (Mangli Impex Case) . Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous appeal is also dismissed as withdrawn at SR stage itself. No costs.
[G.J., J.] & [R.P., J.]
10.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Sm
4/5
C.M.P.(MD) No.18786 of 2024
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND R.POORNIMA , J.
Sm
Order made in C.M.P.(MD)No.18786 of 2024 in C.M.A.(MD)No.SR17945 of 2019
Dated: 10.02.2025
2 issues framed by the court
Should the 402-day delay in filing the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act be condoned?
Could the appeal be withdrawn in light of the Supreme Court's decision on DRI jurisdiction?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Customs vs. Canon India Private Limited (Mangli Impex Case)Referred¶2
Commissioner of Customs vs. Canon India Private Limited (Mangli Impex Case)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Pathi Prints
G.Jayachandran
R.Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
