Case Details: Wide Impex Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs Import (2025) 31 Centax 430 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
- Ms Anjali Jha Manish, Ms Priyadarshi Manish & Shri Ahluwalia, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri R. Ramachandran, Sr. Standing Counsel with Prateek Dhir, Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner, an importer, challenged the dismissal of its appeal by the CESTAT which had been rejected for defects arising from non-furnishing of the mandatory pre-deposit. Earlier, the importer had filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that the bank guarantee furnished should be encashed as part payment of the pre-deposit, and that the imported goods were lying at the port. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Subsequently, the bank guarantee was encashed, and CESTAT passed multiple orders granting the importer time to comply with the pre-deposit requirement. On continued non-deposit, the appeal was again dismissed by CESTAT. The importer then approached the High Court once more, challenging the dismissal of the appeal and also seeking to set aside the Order-in-Original. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court of Delhi.
High Court Held
The Delhi High Court held that the importer was effectively attempting to challenge the earlier CESTAT dismissal order for a second time, an issue which had already been considered and dismissed in the prior writ petition. It observed that the importer could not pursue a second round of litigation on the same matter. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
List of Cases Cited
- Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi — (2008) 4 SCC 720 — Distinguished [Paras 7, 19]
- Shubh Impex v. Union of India — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 199 (Del.) — Distinguished [Paras 6, 19]
- Wide Impex v. Principal Commissioner — W.P. (C) No. 15448 of 2024, decided on 6-11-2024 by Delhi High Court — Relied on [Paras 10, 17]
