[Delhi High Court] Failure to provide tracking details for speed-post notices leads to customs order being set aside.

Introduction:

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Govind Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), W.P.(C) 12619/2025, examined whether an ex-parte adjudication order passed under the Customs Act, 1962 (‘the Act’) could stand when notices allegedly issued to the assessee were not demonstrably served. The Hon’ble High Court emphasized compliance with natural justice, especially where substantial duty demands, penalties and confiscation orders are involved.

Brief Facts:

• Govind Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd (‘the Petitioner’) challenged the Order-in-Original dated 26.07.2024 (‘impugned order’), along with a corrigendum dated 09.10.2024, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) (‘the Respondent’).
• The Show Cause Notice had originally been issued on 02.02.2016 to the Petitioner, following which the matter remained dormant i.e., placed in the “call book”. The Petitioner argued that while hearings were scheduled, no notices were received after the matter resurfaced post the Supreme Court ruling in Commissioner of Customs V. M/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd[i].
• The impugned order records that three notices were issued for personal hearing. However, the Petitioner contended that none of these notices were ever served and that the final order was also not communicated through email or any other formal mode. The petitioner states that it became aware of the order only when it approached the Respondent to check the status of the case.
• Meanwhile, during the investigation phase, the Petitioner had deposited Rs. 39 Lakhs, which was later appropriated against duty demanded to the tune of Rs. 1,29,49,718/- by the Respondent vide the impugned order. The impugned order determined reassessed customs duty, imposed penalties, ordered confiscation of goods and levied interest under various provisions of the Act as well.
• The Petitioner further submitted that even the impugned order was never formally served and was discovered only upon inquiry with the Respondent. Therefore, in view of the above the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

Held:

• The Hon’ble High Court set aside the ex – parte impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, holding that the Respondent failed to establish proper service of hearing notices or the final order.
• Since no delivery proof of the notices issued in early 2024 was produced by the Respondent, the Hon’ble Court observed that the Petitioner had been denied a fair opportunity to respond.
• The High Court also noted that the Petitioner had already deposited Rs. 39,00,000 i.e., amount exceeding the statutory pre-deposit requirement reducing any prejudice to revenue.
• Accordingly, the impugned order and corrigendum were quashed, relied-upon documents were directed to be served, and a fresh hearing was ordered with verifiable service via email and phone.
• In light of the above, the Hon’ble High Court held that tracking and delivery records for all future notices must be maintained in the database.

Analysis:

This ruling reinforces the High Courts’ emphasis on procedural fairness in customs matters involving significant duty demands, penalties and confiscation. Although the presence of a statutory appeal would normally discourage writ intervention, the lack of proof of service resulting in an ex-parte order justified judicial interference.

Given that the Petitioner had already deposited an amount higher than the prescribed pre-deposit and was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard after the matter resurfaced from the call book, the High Court held that remand was the appropriate remedy. The directive to maintain proper tracking and delivery records reflects a broader move toward greater accountability in customs adjudication and ensures that proceedings advance fairly without undermining revenue interests.

---

[i] Review Petition No. 400 of 2021