2025 (3) TMI 1149 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - diversion of imported walnuts into the domestic market by not re-exporting - no opportunity was afforded for personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The Court is of the view that the Petitioners ought to be relegated to avail of the remedy against the impugned Order-in-Original before the CESTAT. This Court has not examined any of the grounds which have been raised by the Petitioners. All objections are kept open. The Petitioners are free to raise all their grounds of challenge to the impugned order before CESTAT. Considering the nature of the matter and the submissions made today in the unique facts and circumstances of these cases the pre-deposit for filing the appeal is reduced to 3.75%. This order shall not be treated as a precedent. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma, addressed petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an Order-in-Original dated December 20, 2024, issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. The Petitioners, directors of M/s Kashmir Walnut Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. United Seair Pvt. Ltd., were accused of not re-exporting imported walnuts, allegedly diverting them into the domestic market. Key issues raised by the Petitioners included the denial of a personal hearing post cross-examination and the inability to cross-examine witnesses who provided statements under Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962, which they argued violated principles of natural justice. The Department, represented by Mr. Harpreet Singh, contended that the Order-in-Original is appealable before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), questioning the maintainability of the petitions.The Court decided that the Petitioners should pursue their remedy before the CESTAT, allowing them to raise all grounds of challenge there. The Court reduced the pre-deposit required for filing the appeal to 3.75%, emphasizing that this decision is not to be considered a precedent. The petitions and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.