After adjudication orders are passed, challenges should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appellate remedy.

The petitioner sought release of bank guarantees totalling ₹19,19,400 furnished in connection with the provisional assessment of nine Bills of Entry filed in 2014–2015, alleging prolonged failure by Customs to finalise the assessments

An Order-in-Original dated 21 January 2022, ordering absolute confiscation and imposing penalties, had been passed for one Bill of Entry before the writ petition was filed, but was not disclosed in the petition

During the proceedings, further Orders-in-Original dated 31 March and 15 June 2026 were passed in respect of the remaining Bills of Entry

The petitioner asked the High Court to keep the petition pending in light of the Supreme Court’s order in Union of India v. GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd.

1. Whether the Supreme Court’s order dated 2 May 2025 in Union of India v. GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd. required the High Court to keep this petition pending.

2. Whether, following the Orders-in-Original, the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. What relief, if any, should be granted.

Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides a statutory appeal against specified decisions or orders of Customs officers below the rank of Commissioner.

Ordinarily, where an efficacious statutory remedy is available, the writ court will not bypass that remedy absent exceptional circumstances.

The Supreme Court’s order in Union of India v. GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd. directed deferral of matters concerning the issue of delay in adjudication in the context then before it; it did not require every proceeding in which delay had previously been alleged to remain pending regardless of later developments.

A party invoking Article 226 must make full and candid disclosure of material facts relevant to the relief sought.

The Court held that the case had materially changed: adjudication orders had been made for all nine Bills of Entry, and the dispute could no longer be treated as one concerning only pending provisional assessments.

The orders—particularly the confiscation and penalty order—governed the parties’ rights and liabilities, making the statutory appellate forum the appropriate forum to consider their validity and consequential issues, including the bank guarantees and the alleged effect of delay.

The GMR Airport Infrastructure order did not require the petition to be retained because the adjudications had already concluded.

The Court also considered material the petitioner’s failure to disclose the 2022 order, which pre-dated the petition and contradicted its asserted premise that adjudication remained pending for that Bill of Entry.

It expressed no view on the merits of those orders or the petitioner’s delay-related contentions, leaving them open before the appellate authority.

If the petitioner applies for condonation of delay, the authority is to consider the application in accordance with law, taking into account the pendency of the writ petition, without being influenced by observations on the merits.