Suppression Of Material Facts Bars Relief: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Against Customs Penalty; Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs In Alleged Poppy-Seeds Concealment Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by the authorised representative of an overseas consignor, holding that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and had an efficacious appellate remedy under the Customs Act. The Bench noted that he had not disclosed that an earlier challenge to the same penalty order had already been rejected, and therefore directed him to pay exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh. The dispute arose from allegations that prohibited goods were concealed within consignments declared as fertilizer, leading to confiscation and penalties on the importer, its proprietor, and the petitioner. The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and directed him to pursue the statutory appeal.
The matter concerns a petition filed by the authorised representative of an overseas consignor challenging an order issued by the Customs authority imposing penalties in relation to certain consignments intercepted at Inland Container Depots. The Customs Department had received information that goods declared as ammonium sulphate in several containers were, in fact, concealing prohibited items, including poppy seeds and areca nuts. Alerts were issued regarding the consignments, which were initially linked to one entity and later reflected under the Importer-Exporter Code of another importer that subsequently disowned the goods. The consignor’s representative received communications seeking consent for re-export, and proceedings were initiated following seizure of the containers.
During investigation, the petitioner stated that he had been appointed as power of attorney holder and had signed documents under instructions of counsel without knowledge of the consignor’s operations, documentation, or dealings with the importer. The Show Cause Notice recorded allegations of misdeclaration, concealment of goods, and lack of cooperation, including non-appearance despite repeated summons. Statements indicated the petitioner was unaware of key transaction details, suggesting possible use of a proxy representative.
The Customs authority invoked Sections 111, 112, 114AA, 117, 119, 132 and 135 of the Customs Act in relation to confiscation, penalties, and recommended prosecution, based on findings of deliberate concealment and intentional import of prohibited goods.
The Court recorded that “there has been gross concealment by Petitioner… in the filing of the present petition, and not enclosing the order in W.P.(C) 4859/2025”. It observed that earlier proceedings placed before a coordinate bench had not been supported with complete material facts and that “relief… had been obtained based on incomplete disclosure to the Court.”
The Bench noted the findings in the Order-in-Original and stated that “various material facts and findings have been placed on record vide the impugned order… pursuant to a comprehensive investigation.” It referred to the investigation’s conclusion that the consignor had intentionally dispatched prohibited goods and that the petitioner had acted without knowledge, which the Court recited from the adjudicating authority’s findings: “It was quite evident that Sh. Manish Sharma was merely signing on the dotted line upon the instructions of the advocate and the operator working from behind the scene.”
The Court further recorded that “the matter required a deeper probe which led to the investigation and then the passing of the impugned order.” It noted that the use of the importer’s IEC code “cannot prima facie be accepted to be merely an innocent instance of misuse.” It stated that the petitioner had claimed innocence while the exporter had simultaneously filed a writ petition, yet the authorised representative had no knowledge, and “only the advocate who filed the writ petition appears to have had knowledge of the case.”
The Bench stated that “the entire matter required a deeper probe, after which the Petitioner has been found to be complicit.” It additionally recorded that “there appears to be clandestine import of goods like poppy seeds and areca nuts after indulging in misdeclaration.”
Referring to the Supreme Court precedent in Commercial Steel Limited, the Court stated that the existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar but recognised exceptions such as breach of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice. The Bench recorded that “none of the above exceptions was established” and that factual assessment must be undertaken by the appellate authority.
The Court concluded that the petitioner had a statutory remedy but had not availed of it, and that “in such cases, writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised by this Court.” It held that the petition could not be entertained given the factual disputes and non-disclosure of connected orders.
The Court directed: “In view of the irregularities which are revealed in the impugned Order-in-Original, as also the fact that the Petitioner clearly had an alternate remedy to avail of by filing an appeal, under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which has not been availed of this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.”
“The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000/-, to be deposited by the Petitioner with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within four weeks of this order. List for compliance on 18th December, 2025.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Priyadarshi Manish, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC; Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocate; Mr. Jatin Gaur, Advocate
Case Title: Manish Sharma v. Additional Commissioner of Customs
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10116-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 17242/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh; Justice Shail Jain
