Case Details: Bonanza Enterprises Versus Assistant Commissioner of Customs (2025) 28 Centax 99 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pratibha M. Singh & Amit Sharma, JJ.
- Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Aakarsh Srivastava, Standing Counsel & Adv Anand Pandey, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Customs Department issued an Order-in-Original against the exporter, determining duty drawback recovery. The order was passed ex-parte as the exporter did not respond to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) or participate in the hearing. The department claimed that notices were dispatched via registered post, speed post, or courier under Section 153(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, it was unclear whether service was also effected through email under Section 153(c). Despite the exporter not having changed its address, all notices were returned undelivered. Additionally, foreign exchange realization had been completed at a later stage, which was not considered by the department before finalizing the order.
Aggrieved by the ex-parte order and improper service of notices, the exporter filed a writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original.
High Court Held
The Honourable High Court ruled that the Customs Department failed to ensure proper service of notices, leading to an ex-parte order against the exporter. The court emphasized that under Section 153(c) of the Customs Act, 1962, notices should also be served via email and the DGFT common portal to prevent procedural lapses. The Order-in-Original was set aside, and the exporter was granted an opportunity to respond to the SCN and participate in the hearing. The court further directed the Customs Department to implement a dual service mechanism, mandating the use of email and the DGFT portal alongside traditional methods (speed post, registered post, or courier) to prevent delays, ensure procedural compliance, and avoid ex-parte proceedings in the future.
