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 Subsequently, this exemption was rescinded on 31st March 2022 through Notification No. 2/2022-Customs dated 01-02-2022.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Your email address will not be published.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
Customs Tariff Item 8528 52 00 Covers LED Monitor Tiles | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 18, 2025

SC Clarifies CESTAT Did Not Uphold Finding Against Customs Broker

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 17, 2025

Customs Finalisation of Provisional Assessment Regulations 2025 – CBIC Notification 55/2025

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

September 16, 2025

HC Backs Preferential Treatment For Startups And MSMEs

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 15, 2025

HC Orders Release Of Detained Personal Gold Jewellery

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 15, 2025

Provisional Release of Seized Roasted Areca Nuts Allowed | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

Battery Operated AMR Water Meters Classifiable Under 9026 10 10 | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

Polyester Bed Sheets Classified Under Heading 6304: CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 10, 2025

Appeal Maintainable in HC if Issue is Breach of Duty Exemption Condition | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 9, 2025

Gold Bars to Be Released to Bank on Provisional Basis | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 8, 2025