Non-communication of time extensions under Section 28(9) of Customs Act does not invalidate adjudication proceedings.

The petitioners are proprietors of firms (M/s N. Brothers Overseas and M/s Sanjay International) alleged to be proxy/dummy entities controlled by a co-noticee, Zakir Khan, for the purpose of undervaluation and mis-declaration of imported electronic goods.

Following intelligence from Income Tax authorities, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted searches on 18.10.2021.

A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on 12.10.2023 under Sections 28(4) and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Subsequently, a corrigendum was issued on 08.01.2024 to incorporate additional statements of co-noticees recorded after the SCN.

The proceedings culminated in an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 01.08.2025, which imposed penalties of ₹5,00,00,000/- under Section 112(a)(i) and an additional ₹5,00,00,000/- under Section 114AA upon each petitioner.

The petitioners challenged the OIO through writ petitions, bypassing the statutory appellate remedy, on grounds of limitation and jurisdictional errors.

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution notwithstanding the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act.

2. Whether the corrigendum dated 08.01.2024 was a substantive supplementary SCN issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 28BB.

3. Whether the adjudication was time-barred under Section 28(9) and if the non-communication of the extension of time for adjudication rendered the OIO void.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy exists, except in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice, as established in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.

The court interpreted Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the statutory period for adjudication and the validity of extensions.

The court further relied on the precedent in Pranij Heights India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs, which holds that Section 28 does not mandate the communication of an extension order to the noticee as a condition for its validity.

Section 28BB was applied regarding the two-year limitation for completing investigations initiating from a search.

The court observed that the Adjudicating Authority had recorded an extension of time for adjudication on 03.10.2024 (valid until 11.10.2025), making the OIO dated 01.08.2025 timely under Section 28(9).

Following Pranij Heights, the court rejected the argument that non-communication of this extension was a fatal jurisdictional error.

Regarding Section 28BB, the court found that the original SCN was issued within two years of the initial search.

The court noted the Adjudicating Authority's finding that the corrigendum did not alter the duty demand or substantive allegations but merely incorporated corroborative statements, thus not constituting a fresh SCN for limitation purposes.

Ultimately, the court determined that the petitioners' grievances—including non-supply of documents and retraction of statements—were matters of merit already addressed in the OIO and should be scrutinized by the statutory appellate authority.

The petitioners were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act.

The court directed that the period spent pursuing the writ petitions be excluded when computing limitation for filing the appeal.

No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.