Quanta Logistics Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs Import-I

CNR No : HCBM020344262026

11-WP-5093-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5093 OF 2026
Quanta Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
company incorporated under the
companies Act, 1996 having
registerd office at No. 6, Esplande,
II nd Floor, MA Chidambaram Building,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 108
)
)
)
)
)
).....Petitioner
Versus
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
).....Respondents
Commissioner of Customs (Import-I)
a statutory authority authority under the
provisions of the Customs Act, 1962
having office
at Adjudication Cell, New Custom House,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 707
Union of India
through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
.....
Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Bimal Rajasekhar
and Adv. Sunand Subramaniam, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, for the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
th
DATE : 30 OCTOBER 2026
Manisha
1/4
Digitally signed
by MANISHA
BALKRISHNA
TALEKAR
Date: 2026.11.05
12:41:51 +0530
MANISHA
BALKRISHNA
TALEKAR
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:49:45

11-WP-5093-2026.doc
JUDGMENT [PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] :-
1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the
th
Order-in-Original dated 11 August, 2026 which is at Exhibit-A to
the Petition.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Order in question was
passed by taking recourse to Artificial Intelligence (AI) without
independent application of mind by the Respondent No.1. Learned
Counsel for the Petitioner as an example cites two non-existent
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are relied by the
Respondent No.1 while passing the said Order. It is the case of the
Petitioner that to the best of its knowledge these judgments do not
exists in any Law Report or database and it appears to be a
st
hallucination of AI. The Petitioner by letter dated 1 September, 2026
requested the Respondent No.1 for copies of the said Judgments,
however, the same were not provided.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya Vs. Union of
1
India & Anr. . He invited our specific attention to following
paragraphs:
1 2026 INSC 947
Manisha
2/4
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:49:45

11-WP-5093-2026.doc
5. Such a discovery compels us to refer to the decision of this
Court in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. It
happens to be a precedent dealing with the use of Al in
judgments. Excerpts therefrom read:
7. It is necessary for courts to adopt a zero-tolerance mode
for producing, citing or using artificial intelligence-
generated precedents without verification. It is a
misconduct on the part of an advocate to cite such
judgments without verification. Equally, it is a serious lapse
if a judge relies on such a fake or hallucinated artificial
intelligence-generated material as precedents in support of
the determination. We have no hesitation in declaring that
such a decision is no decision in the eyes of the law,
irrespective of whether such material had a direct or
indirect bearing on the decision-making. Such decisions
are to be set aside even if an iota of fake or hallucinated
material enters the decision-making process, as it would
violate the sanctity of adjudication. It is absolutely
necessary to maintain integrity in decision page making,
and we reiterate and declare zero tolerance for the Bar as
well as the Bench to cite, refer to, or rely on such material.
It is also clarified that our judgment shall have no bearing
on the rightful use of artificial intelligence, but on the
presentation or reliance on fake or hallucinated material as
if it were a court precedent.
6. At this juncture, we may also add a comment on the use
of Artificial Intelligence in adjudicatory processes. While this
issue incidentally falls upon us to be considered, use of Al in
the process of adjudication is not foreign. Quite the contrary,
this Court has recently released draft Regulations for Use of
Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, calling for comments
and suggestions. Notwithstanding that the regulations are yet
to be finalised, use of AI as an assistive tool to speed up the
decision-making process cannot be denied. However, a note of
caution must be sounded: assistance can never be substituted
for adjudication. AI may well serve as training wheels but
entrusting it with the pilot's seat would be both imprudent and
dangerous.
Manisha
3/4
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:49:45

11-WP-5093-2026.doc
7. The use of Al in this case, resulting in reliance placed by
the second respondent on material which is dubious, proves
fatal to the sustainability of the order imposing penalty on the
appellant. Such circumstances compel us to interfere and
remand the case. Learned Additional Solicitor General has not
joined issue
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents fairly submits that the
impugned Order can be quashed and set aside and the matter can be
remanded back to the Respondent No.1 for passing of a fresh Order.
th
4. By consent of both the parties, the Order dated 11 August,
2026 is quashed and set aside.
5. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Respondent No.1
th
on 5 November, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. after which the Respondent
No.1 shall fix the next date of hearing. The proceedings be concluded
th
within a period of eight weeks from 5 November, 2026.
6. In view of above, Writ Petition No.5093 of 2026 stands
disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Manisha
4/4
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:49:45
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)