They Asked For The Case To Be Parked, Then Said It Was Too Late
Copper importers accused of diverting duty-free raw material said the customs order against them came too late. The Delhi High Court found it was in time, and that their own conduct counted too.
The Court held the order was passed within the periods in Sections 28(9) and 28(9A) of the Customs Act. Independently, an efficacious appeal was available, and the importers had sought deferment pending their own writ, then failed to say when it was dismissed. A party cannot approbate and reprobate — seeking a delay, then profiting from it. The petition was dismissed with liberty to appeal.
- Section 28(9A) stops the clock while specified reasons for not deciding exist.
- Conduct matters in writ jurisdiction. Seeking deferment undercuts a later delay argument.
- The merits were never challenged — only limitation.
- The appeal remains open on every ground.
- Court
- High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL, Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
- Citation
- W.P.(C) No. 5796 of 2025
- Case
- W.P.(C) No. 5796 of 2025
- Decided
- 7 September 2026
- Outcome
- Writ petition dismissed; liberty to file statutory appeal
The allegation
The petitioners imported electrolytic copper rods duty-free under advance authorisations, on condition of exporting copper wire and cables made from them.
Investigators alleged the duty-free copper was diverted into the domestic market in the guise of job work, through firms that existed only on paper, and that the export obligations were not met. A show cause notice of June 2022 proposed differential duty of about Rs 20.18 crore.
The petitioners replied only by asking that adjudication be deferred until their own writ petition was decided. That petition was dismissed in December 2023; the order-in-original came in November 2024.
Why the challenge failed
The petition attacked the order only on limitation, not on the findings of diversion or unmet export obligations.
The Court computed the periods under Sections 28(9) and 28(9A), which pause the time limit while specified reasons prevent a decision, and held the order was within time.
Independently, an efficacious appeal was available. And the petitioners had not told the adjudicating authority that their writ petition had been dismissed; the Department learnt of it on its own review. Having invoked a pending case to keep adjudication in abeyance, they could not seek writ relief from the delay they themselves asked for.
The result
The petition was dismissed. The petitioners may pursue the statutory appeal and raise all grounds on merits there, uninfluenced by the judgment's observations.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a customs order be quashed for being passed too late?
Yes, if outside Section 28(9) as extended by Section 28(9A). Here it was held within time.
Does asking for deferment affect my limitation argument?
It can. The Court held a party cannot seek delay and then profit from it.
Before arguing a customs order came too late
- Compute Sections 28(9) and 28(9A) carefully, including any Call Book period.
- If you asked for deferment, expect it to be held against you.
- Tell the authority promptly when the reason for deferment ends.
- Consider arguing the merits in appeal rather than only limitation by writ.
Source. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, W.P.(C) No. 5796 of 2025, decided 7 September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL, Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in