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 Subsequently, this exemption was rescinded on 31st March 2022 through Notification No. 2/2022-Customs dated 01-02-2022.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Your email address will not be published.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
Govt Revises Tariff Values for Edible Oils | Gold | Silver and More

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

February 1, 2026

No Export Duty on Iron Ore Fines Below 58% Fe | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

NDPS Case | SC Allows Interim Release of Foreign Vessel

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 30, 2026

Government Revises Tariff Values For Edible Oils, Gold And Silver

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 29, 2026

Gold Smuggling Via Diplomatic Cargo Leads To Licence Revocation | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

Commercial Frying System Classifiable Under HSN 8438 | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Namkeen Frying System Classifiable Under HSN 8438 | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Customs Can’t Alter FOB Or Recompute Drawback | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026

CBL Regulations Breach, Licence Revocation Set Aside, Penalty Upheld

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026

CBIC Grants One-Time QCO Exemption For Cross Recessed Screws

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 20, 2026