W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 1 of 20

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 16.09.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 28.09.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 28.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010229892026

+ W.P.(C) 7004/2026 and CM APPL. 34395/2026

VISHAL OIL AND LUBRICANTS CO. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rohit Kapur, Adv.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT)

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Ms.

Ruchita Srivastava, Mr. Sparsh

Jain, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.:

1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to

the Respondent to waive the interest/late charges reflected in the

Customs EDI System in respect of the aforesaid Bill of Entry.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition

is whether the Petitioner can be saddled with the entire amount of

interest reflected in the Customs EDI System in respect of Bill of

Entry No. 9174780 dated 08.05.2015, including the period during

which the imported goods remained seized and the proceedings

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 2 of 20

arising out of the Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2015 remained

pending before the Customs authorities for nearly eight (08) long

years.

FACTUAL MATRIX :

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present

Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4. The Petitioner is a proprietorship concern of Mr. Dalip Singh

Rathore and is stated to be engaged in the business of import and sale

of petroleum products. On 08.05.2015, the Petitioner filed Bill of

Entry No. 9174780 at Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New

Delhi, through its Customs Broker, declaring the imported goods as

“Bitumen” falling under Customs Tariff Heading 27132000. The

declared value of the goods was Rs.36,73,758/-.

5. The Bill of Entry was assessed on 08/09.05.2015 and customs

duty of Rs.9,22,210/- was assessed thereon. The consignment,

however, was put on hold by the SIIB (Import), ICD Tughlakabad for

physical examination. Upon examination conducted on 13.05.2015

and 14.05.2015, it was found that out of the 90 drums declared, 80

drums contained a black-coloured substance whereas 10 drums were

empty. Representative samples were drawn and forwarded to the

Central Revenue Control Laboratory, Pusa, New Delhi [„CRCL‟] for

examination.

6. The CRCL, vide test report dated 02.06.2015, reported the

samples to be “Used Oil” and not “Bitumen”. On the basis of the said

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 3 of 20

report, the Customs authorities took the view that the imported goods

were “Used Oil” falling under Customs Tariff Heading 27101990 and

treated the same as a restricted item requiring the requisite

permissions/licence. The goods were consequently seized on

05.06.2015 under Section 110 of the Act.

7. Thereafter, the Petitioner was issued a summons under Section

108 of the Act and its statement was recorded on 06.07.2015.

According to the Petitioner, it had placed an order for “Bitumen” and

the goods described as “Used Oil” had been supplied by the overseas

supplier by mistake. The Petitioner also claims to have produced a

written communication from the overseas supplier acknowledging the

mistake.

8. On 19.08.2015, the Petitioner addressed a communication to the

Customs authorities seeking waiver of the Show Cause Notice and

early adjudication of the matter. Notwithstanding the said request, a

Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2015 was issued by the Joint

Commissioner of Customs, proposing, inter alia, confiscation of the

goods under Section 111 of the Act and imposition of penalties under

Sections 112, 114A and 114AA of the Act.

9. The Petitioner submitted its written reply to the Show Cause

Notice on 01.10.2015. The Petitioner disputed the allegation that the

“Used Oil” was a restricted or prohibited item and contended that the

goods were not hazardous waste. A personal hearing was thereafter

afforded on 08.12.2015, which was attended by the Petitioner's

counsel. The Petitioner states that, during the hearing, a request was

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 4 of 20

again made for early adjudication.

10. No adjudication order was passed thereafter for a considerable

period. A further opportunity of personal hearing was afforded on

27.10.2016 by the succeeding adjudicating officer. The Petitioner did

not appear on the said date but, by a communication dated 27.10.2016,

informed the adjudicating authority that it had already submitted its

written reply and had availed the opportunity of personal hearing and,

therefore, did not wish to have any further personal hearing. The

Petitioner again requested that the matter be adjudicated

expeditiously, particularly as the consignment was lying uncleared.

11. The matter ultimately came up before the Additional

Commissioner of Customs, ACE, New Delhi, who afforded another

personal hearing on 31.01.2023. The Petitioner‟s representative

appeared at the hearing and reiterated the earlier submissions and

requested that the Show Cause Notice be adjudicated without any

further delay.

12. On 28.02.2023, the Additional Commissioner of Customs

passed Order-in-Original No. 11/SK/ADC/ACE/2023. The

adjudicating authority directed amendment of the description and

classification in Bill of Entry No. 9174780 from “Bitumen” falling

under CTH 27132000 to “Used Oil” falling under CTH 27101990.

The adjudicating authority further recorded that the “Used Oil” was

non-hazardous and held that no additional duty over and above the

duty already determined was payable. The declared transaction value

of Rs.36,73,758/- was accepted and the customs duty liability of

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 5 of 20

Rs.9,22,210/- was confirmed, which, according to the order, had

already been paid and was accordingly appropriated.

13. The Order-in-Original further held the goods liable to

confiscation under Sections 111(l) and 111(m) of the Act. However,

an option was granted to the Petitioner to redeem the goods on

payment of redemption fine of Rs.1,83,000/- under Section 125 of the

Act. A penalty of Rs.5,000/- was imposed upon the Petitioner under

Section 112(a)(ii) of the Act and a further penalty of Rs.1,83,000/-

was imposed under Section 114AA of the Act. The proposed penalty

under Section 114A of the Act was dropped.

14. The Order-in-Original also records that the “Used Oil” was

non-hazardous and notices that similar non-hazardous used oil had

been cleared from Nhava Sheva Port. The adjudicating authority

accepted the declared transaction value and recorded that no

additional duty, over and above the duty already determined, was

payable. The order, thus, culminated the adjudication proceedings

arising out of the Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2015.

15. It is not in dispute that the Bill of Entry was thereafter amended

and re-assessed on 29.08.2023 pursuant to the aforesaid Order-in-

Original. The description and classification of the goods were

accordingly changed from “Bitumen” to “Used Oil” and from CTH

27132000 to CTH 27101990.

16. According to the Petitioner, upon seeking clearance of the

goods pursuant to the adjudication order and the consequential re-

assessment, the Petitioner was required to deal with an amount

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 6 of 20

described in the Customs EDI System as “interest charges”. The

Petitioner states that the amount reflected as interest was

approximately Rs.11,74,806/- on 16.11.2023. The Petitioner thereafter

made representations to the Customs authorities seeking removal of

the said interest liability.

17. The Petitioner states that the amount reflected as interest

continued to increase and was shown as Rs.12,10,874/- on 22.02.2024

and Rs.13,61,713/- on 28.03.2026. According to the Petitioner, the

amount had increased further to Rs.15,21,645/- as on 01.05.2026. The

Petitioner claims to have addressed representations dated 16.11.2023,

26.03.2025, 02.04.2025, 11.04.2025, 02.05.2025, 19.05.2025,

03.12.2025 and 28.03.2026 requesting that the said interest be

removed. No effective response was received, leading to the filing of

the present Petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES :

18. Contentions on behalf of the Petitioner:

18.1. It was submitted that the Petitioner cannot be made liable for

interest for the period during which the Bill of Entry could not be

finally processed on account of the seizure of the goods and the

pendency of adjudication proceedings before the Customs authorities.

It was submitted that the Bill of Entry was presented on 08.05.2015

and there is no allegation that the Bill of Entry itself was presented

belatedly.

18.2. It was further submitted that the Petitioner had continuously

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 7 of 20

sought adjudication of the proceedings. The Petitioner had filed its

reply to the Show Cause Notice on 01.10.2015, appeared through

counsel at the personal hearing on 08.12.2015, and thereafter, by

communication dated 27.10.2016, specifically requested that the

matter be adjudicated expeditiously. Even when the matter was taken

up in 2023, the Petitioner appeared and again requested adjudication.

Thus, according to the Petitioner, the prolonged pendency of the

proceedings cannot be attributed to it.

18.3. It was further submitted that the provisions relating to late

presentation of a Bill of Entry under Section 46(3) of the Act have no

application to the present case. The Bill of Entry was admittedly

presented on 08.05.2015, shortly after the arrival of the goods, and

there is no case of the Respondent that the amount reflected in the EDI

System represents a charge for delayed presentation of the Bill of

Entry.

18.4. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of this Court in Swatch

Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

1

and Gala

International Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of

Revenue Intelligence, Delhi & Ors.

2

, to contend that statutory

proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely and that departmental

delay cannot be permitted to operate to the prejudice of the importer.

18.5. It was submitted that the adjudication proceedings remained

pending from September, 2015 until February, 2023, i.e. for more than

seven (07) years. During this entire period, according to the Petitioner,

1

2023 SCC OnLine Del 4938

2

2023 SCC OnLine Del 6073

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 8 of 20

the goods remained under the control of the Customs authorities and

the Petitioner had no occasion to obtain final clearance of the goods. It

was, therefore, contended that the Department cannot now seek to

recover interest calculated by treating the liability as having remained

outstanding from the original assessment in May, 2015.

18.6. It was further submitted that the Order-in-Original itself did not

sustain the Department‟s original apprehension in its entirety. The

adjudicating authority ultimately recorded that the imported “Used

Oil” was non-hazardous, accepted the declared transaction value and

held that no additional duty over and above the duty already

determined was payable. It was submitted that the Petitioner should

not be burdened with an interest liability for the prolonged period

during which the Department itself was seized of the matter.

19. Contentions on behalf of the Respondent:

19.1. Per contra, it was submitted that the present Petition is

misconceived. It was contended that the Petitioner has an efficacious

statutory appellate remedy against the Order-in-Original and that the

present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be

entertained

19.2. It was submitted that the Petitioner accepted the Order-in-

Original and exercised the option for redemption of the confiscated

goods. Having accepted the order and sought redemption, the

Petitioner cannot now dispute the statutory consequences flowing

from the said order.

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 9 of 20

19.3. It was submitted that the amount reflected in the EDI System is

not a charge for delayed presentation of the Bill of Entry under

Section 46(3) of the Act. The Bill of Entry was indeed presented in

2015, but the goods were subsequently found to have been

misdeclared. The confiscation proceedings culminated in an order

permitting redemption under Section 125 of the Act and,

consequently, the Petitioner became liable to pay the duty and other

charges payable in respect of the goods.

19.4. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court

in M/s Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

3

, to

submit that once confiscated goods are redeemed upon payment of

fine under Section 125 of the Act, the owner is liable to pay the duty

and charges payable in respect of the goods and the consequential

statutory interest on delayed payment of duty.

19.5. It was further submitted that the EDI System does not create the

liability but merely reflects the statutory liability arising under the

Act. According to the Respondent, the fact that the adjudication

proceedings remained pending for some time cannot, by itself,

extinguish a statutory liability. It was also submitted that the Petitioner

cannot rely upon alleged financial hardship, detention charges or

demurrage to seek waiver of statutory interest.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:

20. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced

on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.

3

2024 INSC 547

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 10 of 20

21. At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the precise controversy

which arises for consideration. The Petitioner has described the

amount reflected in the Customs EDI System as “interest charges” and

seeks waiver thereof. The Respondent, however, does not contend that

the said amount represents any charge on account of delayed

presentation of the Bill of Entry under Section 46(3) of the Customs

Act, 1962 [„the Act‟]. The Respondent‟s case is that the liability arises

as a consequence of the confiscation proceedings and the subsequent

redemption of the goods under Section 125 of the Act.

22. Thus, the question of delayed presentation of the Bill of Entry

under Section 46(3) of the Act is not really in issue. The Bill of Entry

was filed on 08.05.2015. There is no allegation that the Petitioner had

failed to present the Bill of Entry within the prescribed period. The

interest reflected in the EDI System is sought to be justified on an

entirely different basis.

23. The Respondent principally relies upon Section 125 of the Act

and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Navayuga Engineering

(supra). In the said case, the Supreme Court considered the liability to

pay customs duty in respect of goods which had been confiscated but

were subsequently redeemed upon payment of fine under Section 125

of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the owner of the goods

remains liable to pay customs duty even after redemption. At the same

time, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between the occasion on

which the liability under Section 125(2) arises and the statutory

machinery by which the duty liability is assessed and determined. The

Court held that, in confiscation proceedings, the obligation to pay duty

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 11 of 20

and other charges under Section 125(2) arises when the owner

exercises the option to redeem the goods and the Department accepts

the same. The duty liability arising under Section 125(2) is thereafter

required to be assessed under Section 28. The Supreme Court further

held that once Section 28 applies for determination of the duty

liability, the statutory liability towards interest on delayed payment of

duty is attracted.

24. The aforesaid decision, therefore, makes two aspects clear.

First, the liability under Section 125(2) is a consequence of the

confiscation and redemption proceedings and is distinct from the

original assessment of the Bill of Entry. Second, once the liability is

required to be determined through the machinery of Section 28, the

statutory interest provision would follow in accordance with law.

25. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case,

it is important to notice the chronology. The Bill of Entry was filed on

08.05.2015 and was initially assessed on the basis of the declaration

made by the Petitioner that the goods imported were “Bitumen”. The

goods were thereafter examined, found to be “Used Oil”, seized on

05.06.2015 and made the subject matter of confiscation proceedings.

26. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 15.09.2015. The

Petitioner submitted its reply on 01.10.2015 and a personal hearing

was afforded on 08.12.2015. Thereafter, although another hearing was

fixed on 27.10.2016, the proceedings were not brought to conclusion.

The matter was ultimately taken up by the Additional Commissioner

of Customs only in January, 2023 and the Order-in-Original came to

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 12 of 20

be passed on 28.02.2023.

27. Thus, the proceedings arising out of the Show Cause Notice

dated 15.09.2015 remained pending for more than seven (07) years

before the liability arising from the confiscation proceedings was

finally determined by the adjudicating authority.

28. The significance of the date of determination cannot be

overlooked. Prior to the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice, the

Petitioner was faced with proceedings in which the very nature,

description and classification of the imported goods were in dispute.

The goods had been seized and were not available to the Petitioner for

clearance. The question whether the goods were liable to confiscation

and, if so, whether they could be redeemed upon payment of fine, was

itself yet to be adjudicated.

29. It was only by the Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2023 that the

adjudicating authority determined the consequences of the

confiscation proceedings. The authority directed amendment of the

description and classification of the goods from “Bitumen” under

CTH 27132000 to “Used Oil” under CTH 27101990; confirmed the

customs duty liability of Rs.9,22,210/-; recorded that the said duty had

already been paid and appropriated; imposed redemption fine of

Rs.1,83,000/-; and imposed penalties of Rs.5,000/- under Section

112(a)(ii) and Rs.1,83,000/- under Section 114AA of the Act.

30. The Order-in-Original further recorded that the “Used Oil” was

non-hazardous and that no additional duty over and above the duty

already determined was payable. Consequently, it is only upon the

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 13 of 20

passing of the Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2023 that the

consequences flowing from the confiscation proceedings stood

determined.

31. In these circumstances, the Respondent cannot, in this Court‟s

view, proceed on the basis that the statutory interest liability arising

from the redemption proceedings commenced from the date of the

original assessment of the Bill of Entry in May, 2015.

32. The original assessment in May, 2015 was an assessment based

upon the declaration of the goods as “Bitumen”. That assessment was

followed almost immediately by physical examination, seizure and

initiation of confiscation proceedings. The subsequent adjudication

altered the description and classification of the goods and determined

the consequences of the confiscation proceedings. The liability arising

from such proceedings, therefore, cannot be retrospectively treated as

having remained payable from the date of the original assessment

merely for the purpose of calculating interest.

33. The judgment in Navayuga Engineering (supra) supports this

distinction. The Supreme Court has specifically held that the

obligation to pay duty and charges under Section 125(2) arises in the

context of the exercise and acceptance of the redemption option, while

the assessment and determination of the duty liability is undertaken

through the machinery provided under Section 28. It is upon such

determination that the statutory interest provision becomes attracted.

34. In the present case, the amount/liability arising from the

adjudication proceedings was determined by the Order-in-Original

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 14 of 20

dated 28.02.2023. Therefore, the period prior thereto, during which

the confiscation proceedings themselves remained pending and the

amount payable pursuant thereto had not been finally determined,

cannot be treated as a period of delayed payment of the amount

determined under the said proceedings.

35. This Court is conscious that the original Bill of Entry did

contain an assessment of customs duty of Rs.9,22,210/-. However, the

Respondent itself does not contend that the present interest demand is

merely interest on an unpaid amount arising from that original

assessment. Its case is founded upon the liability consequential to

confiscation and redemption under Section 125. Once the Respondent

chooses to sustain the interest demand on that basis, the date on which

the liability arising from the confiscation proceedings was determined

assumes significance.

36. There is yet another circumstance which supports the aforesaid

conclusion. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner did not remain

inactive during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings. The

Petitioner filed its reply to the Show Cause Notice, appeared through

counsel at the hearing held on 08.12.2015 and, thereafter, by

communication dated 27.10.2016, specifically informed the

adjudicating authority that it did not seek any further personal hearing

and requested that the matter be adjudicated expeditiously. The

Petitioner again appeared before the adjudicating authority on

31.01.2023 and requested that the proceedings be concluded.

37. This Court is not holding that departmental delay, by itself,

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 15 of 20

extinguishes a statutory liability to pay interest. Such a proposition

would not be consistent with the statutory scheme or the judgment of

the Supreme Court in Navayuga Engineering (supra). What is being

held is narrower: “interest cannot be calculated for a period during

which the liability sought to be subjected to interest had itself not been

determined”.

38. The distinction is material. If an amount has been determined

and has thereafter remained unpaid, the statutory consequences of

delayed payment may follow in accordance with law. However, where

the amount itself is determined only upon culmination of the

confiscation proceedings, the period anterior to such determination

cannot automatically be treated as a period of delayed payment of that

subsequently determined liability.

39. The Respondent has relied upon the finality of the Order-in-

Original and the Petitioner‟s exercise of the option of redemption.

There is no dispute that the Petitioner has not challenged the Order-in-

Original dated 28.02.2023 in the present proceedings. This Court is

also not examining the correctness of the findings relating to

classification, confiscation, redemption fine or penalty. Those aspects

have attained finality and shall remain undisturbed.

40. However, acceptance of the Order-in-Original cannot mean that

every amount subsequently reflected in the EDI System is immune

from examination by this Court. The present Petition does not seek to

reopen the adjudication order. The limited grievance is as to the period

for which the consequential interest has been computed.

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 16 of 20

41. The Respondent has also submitted that the EDI System merely

reflects the statutory liability and does not itself create such liability.

There can be no quarrel with the proposition. The EDI System cannot

create a liability which is otherwise not authorised by the Act.

Conversely, an amount which is statutorily payable cannot be avoided

merely because it is reflected in the EDI System. The question,

therefore, is one of correct computation in accordance with the

statutory provisions.

42. In this regard, the amount reflected in the EDI System, as stated

by the Petitioner, had reached Rs.11,74,806/- on 16.11.2023 and

continued to increase thereafter. The fact that the amount continued to

increase is itself indicative of the computation being made by

reference to an earlier date. If the computation has proceeded from the

original assessment in May, 2015, the same would necessarily require

correction in view of the legal position discussed hereinabove.

43. This Court, therefore, holds that the Respondent was not

justified in computing the interest liability arising from the

confiscation and redemption proceedings from the date of the original

assessment in May, 2015. The period prior to 28.02.2023, the date of

determination of the amount pursuant to the adjudication proceedings

cannot be subjected to interest on the premise that the amount

determined under the Order-in-Original was in delayed payment from

May, 2015.

44. At the same time, the Petitioner cannot be granted a blanket

waiver of interest for the period subsequent to determination of the

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 17 of 20

liability. Once the amount became determined pursuant to the Order-

in-Original dated 28.02.2023 and became subject to the statutory

consequences applicable to delayed payment, the liability, if otherwise

attracted under the Act, would have to be worked out in accordance

with law.

45. The precise amount payable, therefore, requires recalculation by

the Respondent. Such recalculation shall commence from the date on

which the amount was determined pursuant to the Order-in-Original

dated 28.02.2023 and shall be made in accordance with the applicable

statutory provisions governing interest. The Respondent shall also

take into account the subsequent re-assessment of the Bill of Entry on

29.08.2023 and all payments or appropriations already made.

46. In particular, the Respondent shall not compute interest for the

period from 08/09.05.2015 till 28.02.2023 merely on the ground that

the original Bill of Entry had been assessed in May, 2015. The

interest, if otherwise payable, shall be determined with reference to

the liability as determined in the adjudication proceedings and the

statutory provisions applicable thereto.

47. This Court also deems it appropriate to clarify that the reference

to the Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2023 as the date of determination

is confined to the liability arising from the confiscation proceedings

which is the subject matter of the present dispute. This Court is not

expressing any opinion on any independent statutory liability which

may otherwise arise under the Act on account of a separate and legally

recognised default.

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 18 of 20

48. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the decisions in Swatch

Group India (supra) and Gala International (supra) is therefore not

required to be examined for the purpose of granting a complete

waiver. The relief which follows in the present case flows principally

from the statutory scheme of Sections 125 and 28 of the Act, as

explained by the Supreme Court in Navayuga Engineering (supra).

49. The contention regarding availability of an alternate statutory

remedy also does not warrant dismissal of the present Petition. The

Petitioner is not seeking, in these proceedings, adjudication of the

correctness of the confiscation, classification or penalties imposed

under the Order-in-Original. The limited question concerns the

computation of consequential interest and, in particular, the period

from which such interest can validly be computed. Since the material

facts are undisputed and the issue turns upon the application of the

statutory scheme to the admitted chronology, the present Petition can

be disposed of by issuing a limited direction for recomputation.

50. Accordingly, the challenge to the entire interest liability cannot

be accepted. However, the computation of interest for the period prior

to determination of the amount pursuant to the Order-in-Original

dated 28.02.2023 cannot be sustained.

CONCLUSION:

51. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Petition is partly

allowed in the following terms:

i. The Respondent shall recompute the interest liability in respect

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 19 of 20

of Bill of Entry No. 9174780 dated 08.05.2015 in accordance with the

observations made in Paragraph 43 herein, the Customs Act, 1962 and

the applicable statutory provisions;

ii. while undertaking the aforesaid computation, the Respondent

shall exclude the period from the date of the original assessment in

May, 2015 up to 28.02.2023, being the date on which the liability

arising from the adjudication proceedings was determined by the

Order-in-Original;

iii. the Respondent shall, thereafter, determine the interest, if any,

payable for the period subsequent to 28.02.2023 strictly in accordance

with the applicable statutory provisions and the liability determined

under the Order-in-Original;

iv. the Respondent shall take into account the subsequent re-

assessment of the Bill of Entry on 29.08.2023 and shall give due credit

for all amounts already paid or appropriated towards customs duty,

redemption fine and penalties;

v. the Respondent shall issue a fresh computation to the Petitioner

within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment; and

vi. upon receipt of the fresh computation, the Petitioner shall be

liable to discharge the amount, if any, found payable in accordance

with law.

52. The computation of interest reflected in the Customs EDI

System, to the extent that it proceeds by treating the period prior to

W.P.(C) 7004/2026 Page 20 of 20

28.02.2023 as a period of delayed payment of the liability determined

in the confiscation proceedings, is accordingly set aside.

53. It is clarified that this Court has not interfered with or expressed

any opinion upon the findings contained in Order-in-Original No.

11/SK/ADC/ACE/2023 dated 28.02.2023 relating to the description or

classification of the goods, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty or

any other finding contained therein. The said order shall remain

undisturbed.

54. The Petitioner shall, however, be entitled to the benefit of the

fresh computation in terms of this judgment and shall be liable to pay

only such amount as may be found payable after undertaking the

aforesaid exercise.

55. The Petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of

in the aforesaid terms.

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2026

jai/pal