Vivo Mobile India Pvt Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner, Group 2A, Office Of The Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~100
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 20 May, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 2341/2026 & CM APPL. 11289/2026
VIVO MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. ALEKH SRIVASTAVA,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
10TH& 11TH FLOOR, PALM SPRINGS PLAZA
(COMPLEX), VILLAGE WAZIRABAD, SECTOR-54,
GURUGRAM, HARYANA - 122003. ..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Kishore Kunal and Mr.
Aditya Rathore, Advocates
versus
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - GROUP 2A, OFFICE
OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(PREVENTIVE)
NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, NEAR IGI AIRPORT, NEW
DELHI-110037 ….. RESPONDENT NO. 1
2. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(PREVENTIVE)
NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, NEAR IGI AIRPORT, NEW
DELHI-110037 ….. RESPONDENT NO. 2
3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
16:55:52
W.P.(C) 2341/2026 Page 1 of 7
CUSTOMS, ACC (IMPORT)
NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, NEAR IGI AIRPORT, NEW
DELHI-110037 ..... RESPONDENT NO. 3
Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, SSC with
Mr. Suraj Shekhar Singh,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
1. The present writ petition assails communications by the
1
department dated 14.01.2026 and 12.12.2025 issued to the petitioner
and seeks directions to the respondents for refund of an amount of ₹
3,20,87,688/- on account of this amount having been deposited by the
petitioner under protest pursuant to the aforementioned impugned
communications. The prayer in the petition stands reproduced thus:
a. “Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned Demand
Notices dated 14.01.2026 and 12.12.2025;
b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction directing the Respondents to forthwith refund to the
Petitioner the amount of Rs. 3,20,87,688/- deposited by the
Petitioner under protest pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice
dated 12.12.2025, together with applicable interest, as per law;
1
“Impugned Communications”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
16:55:52
W.P.(C) 2341/2026 Page 2 of 7
c. Pass any such further or other order(s), including an order as to
costs, as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
2. The Petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of
mobile phones in India, and has been regularly importing various
input parts and components, including that of „Screw Washer/
Gaskets‟ for the manufacture of „Printed Circuit Board Assembly‟ to
be used in mobile phones, by filing bills of entry with the Customs
2
Department in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 .
3. An investigation had been initiated against the petitioner for its
import of certain items (screw washer/gasket), alleging
misclassification by the petitioner of imported goods.
4. Thereafter, on 07.04.2025 and 04.12.2025, the respondents
recorded statements of the petitioner‟s authorised representative, who
stated that the screw washer is not an essential component in its
manufacturing process and that the petitioner will be willing to pay
differential duty on imports of the said component. He also requested
that the department issue an appropriate duty demand letter to that
extent.
5. The impugned communication dated 12.12.2025 was issued by
respondent no. 1 indicating differential customs duty amounting to ₹
3,20,87,688 for the period of April 2023 to February 2025, while
impugned communication dated 14.01.2026 indicated differential duty
of ₹ 3,57,95,501/- for the period of February 2021 to March 2023.
2
hereinafter, “The Act”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
16:55:52
W.P.(C) 2341/2026 Page 3 of 7
6. Regarding the latter communication, a reference to our Order
dated 16.04.2026 reveals that the respondents have undertaken not to
bring impugned communication dated 14.01.2026 into effect, thereby
limiting the petitioner‟s challenge only to the impugned
communication dated 12.12.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kishore Kunal, submits
that the impugned communication has been issued by the Assistant
Commissioner, whose pecuniary jurisdiction is capped at ₹ 5,00,000/-,
and that the notice was therefore issued in contravention of the
scheme contemplated within Section 28 of the Act.
8. He argues that these notices amount to a direct imposition of
demand upon the petitioner without issuing a show cause notice
within the scheme of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and that
no liability may be fastened upon the petitioner in this manner.
9. It is further submitted that the sum of ₹ 3,20,87,688/- was paid
by the petitioner under protest, and that the same cannot be
appropriated towards the impugned demand notice.
10. He relies upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
3
Radhika Agarwal v Union of India and a decision of the Karnataka
4
High court in Suretex Prophylactics (India) P Ltd v Union of India
to argue that recovery through amounts paid under protest owing to
threats of arrest/coercion, where not preceded by an order of
adjudication, are wholly without jurisdiction.
3
(2025) 6 SCC 545
4
(2023) 8 CENTAX 19 (Kar)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
16:55:52
W.P.(C) 2341/2026 Page 4 of 7
11. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Gibran Naushad,
submits that there is a complete mischaracterization of the dispute. He
argues that the impugned notice is not a demand notice in consonance
with Section 28 of the Act, and that the impugned notice is actually a
letter that was issued during investigation and was merely of a
suggestive nature to the extent of differential duty payable by the
petitioner.
12. Mr. Naushad brings our attention to the petitioner‟s letter dated
22.12.2025 to argue that the payment was made voluntarily after the
petitioner‟s own calculation of differential duty.
13. Lastly, he refutes Mr. Kunal‟s arguments on inadequacy of
pecuniary jurisdiction on the part of the officer who issued the
impugned communication on the ground that the document is merely
a letter and not a notice as contemplated under Section 28 of the Act,
and that notwithstanding the same, the impugned communication was
issued after the approval of the Commissioner of Customs Preventive
(competent authority).
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
15. We are not persuaded with the petitioner‟s argument that the
impugned communication is a formal demand notice, since the
impugned communication was issued as a follow up to the statement
of the petitioner‟s own authorized representative who expressed a
willingness to pay the differential duty and requested that a letter be
issued to that extent.
16. On the point of refund, a perusal of the contents of the letter in
their entirety reveal an admission by the petitioner to the extent that
there existed an error in calculation of differential duty in the duty
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
16:55:52
W.P.(C) 2341/2026 Page 5 of 7
computation sheet issued by the respondent. Based on this, the
petitioner itself not only recomputed such differential duty but also
proceeded to make payment of such recomputed amount.
17. However, this admission does not bar the petitioner from its
entitlement to the statutory process of adjudication of its liability, if
any, and it is trite that such amounts paid during investigation,
whether under protest or otherwise, may be appropriated towards the
final liability of an assessee at the time of passing of an adjudicatory
order.
18. While we are not inclined to direct a refund of the deposited
amount of around ₹3.2 Crore to the petitioner, we accepts the
statement of Mr. Naushad on instructions that a show cause notice
regarding the petitioner‟s liability, if any, shall be issued within a
period of four weeks from the date on which this order is uploaded,
and that the amount paid by the petitioner shall be appropriated
towards the demand, if any, eventually raised in the adjudicatory
order.
19. In consideration of the statement made by Mr. Naushad for
issuance of a show cause notice within four weeks, we quash and set
aside the impugned communication dated 12.12.2025, with no finding
on impugned communication dated 14.01.2026 owing to Mr.
Naushad‟s statement as recorded in our order dated 16.04.2026.
20. The petition is therefore partly allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a).
21. In the interregnum, no further demands or recovery shall be
made against the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
16:55:52
W.P.(C) 2341/2026 Page 6 of 7
22. It is once again made clear that this order does not adjudicate
the merits of the petitioner‟s liability, if any.
23. The petition stands disposed of, along with pending
applications, if any.
AJAY DIGPAUL
(JUDGE)
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
(JUDGE)
MAY 20, 2026
gs/av
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
16:55:52
W.P.(C) 2341/2026 Page 7 of 7