Customs Directed to Refrain From Repeatedly Resorting to Coercive Measures During Investigation

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

Customs exemption
Case Details: Advantek Fuel Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (2025) 27 Centax 326 (Del.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Prathiba M. Singh & Dharmesh Sharma, JJ.
  • Ms Anjali Jha Manish, S/Shri Priyadarshi Manish, Shreyansh Kushwaha, Jatin Kumar Gaur, Paras Aneja & Aman Ahluwalia, Advs., for the Petitioner.
  • S/Shri Aditya Singla, SSC, Rahul Jain, Ritwik Saha & Umang Mishra, Advs., for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, engaged in the development of CNG/LPG conversion systems, imported specific CNG kit components in 2017 and availed of the exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs, dated 30-06-2017. Subsequently, this exemption was rescinded on 31st March 2022 through Notification No. 2/2022-Customs dated 01-02-2022. Initially, the Customs Department did not object to the exemption claim. However, an investigation was later initiated to reassess the validity of the exemption. The petitioner was informed that the investigation had been closed, but a summons was issued a year later, contradicting the prior closure notice and indicating the continuation of the inquiry. During the investigation, the petitioner and its directors were alleged to be non-cooperative, prompting the Department to provisionally attach the petitioner’s bank accounts. The petitioner challenged this action by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the Customs Department must assess whether sufficient grounds exist to justify the withdrawal of the exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30th June 2017. If such grounds are found, a show cause notice must be issued within three months. The Court further ruled that coercive measures, including repeated summonses and the freezing of bank accounts, must not be undertaken without proceeding with adjudication. Recognizing the adverse impact on business continuity, the Court directed the immediate unfreezing of the petitioner’s bank accounts while allowing an ad hoc deposit of Rs. 3 crores under protest.

List of Notifications Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
India Extends Anti-Dumping Duty on Aniline Imports from China

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

July 21, 2025

KYC Fulfilled by Verifying IEC and GSTIN | No Physical Check Needed—CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

July 19, 2025

CBIC Grants BIS Exemption for Steel Imports

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

July 17, 2025

Legal Heirs Not Liable for Customs Penalty After Assessee’s Death | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

July 16, 2025

Anti-Dumping Duty on Clear Float Glass Extended till Feb 2026

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

July 15, 2025

Mobile Chargers Not Part of Phones | Taxed Separately—HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

July 11, 2025

Gold Jewellery Worn by Foreign National Not Dutiable Baggage | Delhi HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

July 10, 2025

Declared Value Upheld as Black Pepper Import Ban Was Conditional | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

July 9, 2025

Importer Barred from Re-Litigating Pre-Deposit Issue | Delhi HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

July 8, 2025

SCN Must Precede Confiscation of Seized Sale Proceeds | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

July 8, 2025