Citation: M/s Kuku Overseas v. Commissioner of Customs & Anr., W.P.(C) 7322/2024, Delhi High Court (Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan), decided on 06.10.2026 | 2026:DHC:8757-DB
A High Court need not keep a writ petition pending just because the Supreme Court is examining a larger question on delay in adjudication, particularly where adjudication orders have since been passed and the facts differ from the case before the Supreme Court. Once adjudication orders are passed, the party must ordinarily use the statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, and the High Court will not bypass it without exceptional circumstances. A petitioner invoking Article 226 jurisdiction must make a full and candid disclosure of material facts, and non-disclosure of an earlier order can weigh against granting relief.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition by an importer complaining of a nine-year delay in finalising customs assessments, holding that it need not wait for the Supreme Court’s pending case on delay in adjudication, since adjudication orders had already been passed and the importer had a statutory appeal.
M/s Kuku Overseas imported Christmas lights, LED strips and similar goods from China, and nine Bills of Entry from 2014 and 2015 were assessed provisionally, with bank guarantees of Rs 19.19 lakh given as security. The importer approached the High Court in 2024 and asked for release of the bank guarantees and an order stopping Customs from finalising the assessments. It also asked the court to keep its petition pending until the Supreme Court decides Union of India v. GMR Airport Infrastructure, where the top court said that similar delay cases before High Courts and Tribunals may be deferred. Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan found that the situation had changed. Customs had passed an order in January 2022 for one Bill of Entry, which ordered absolute confiscation of the goods and imposed penalties on three persons, and the importer had not disclosed this in the petition. Two more orders followed in March and June 2026 for the other Bills of Entry. The court said that the GMR order must be read in its own context and does not mean that every petition mentioning delay must be kept pending. Here, the case had gone beyond mere pendency of adjudication, and the importer’s request to stop the finalisation was now pointless. The importer could challenge the orders before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, including its argument on delay. The court also said that a petitioner invoking Article 226 must fully and candidly disclose material facts. It dismissed the petition as not maintainable and gave it liberty to file appeals, and said that the pendency of the writ petition must be considered when any application to condone delay in filing the appeals is decided. The court made clear that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the Customs orders or on the effect of the delay.