Delhi High Court
M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others on 7 March, 2025
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 31.01.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2025
+ W.P.(C) 15199/2023 & CM APPL. 60759/2023 (Stay)
M/S ISMARTU INDIA PVT. LTD. ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Tarun Jain, Ms. Kritika
Tuteja, Mr. Devansh Garg &
Ms. Sheena Tyagi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, SCC with
Mr. Harsh Singhal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present petition impugns the Show Cause Notice1 dated 01 September 2023 issued under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 19622 by Respondent No. 2 and seeks a suitable writ quashing the same relying on various grounds inter alia, as follows:
i. The impugned SCN dated 01 September 2023 is a subsequent (second) SCN and since a prior SCN, dated 25 July 2023, was already issued under Section 28(1) of the Act, the subsequent 1 SCN 2 The Act W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 1 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 SCN (hereinafter ―the impugned SCN‖) is bad in Law and not maintainable particularly since the previously issued SCN dated 25 July 2023 was on a similar factual matrix relating to the importation of similar goods. Such a notice, would in fact, constitute a ―change of opinion‖.
ii. The impugned SCN does not satisfy the requirements of Section 28(4) of the Act as the same lacks any particulars regarding any alleged (a) collusion (b) deliberate misrepresentation, or (c) the withholding of crucial information. The impugned SCN does not satisfy the mandatory conditions for issuance of the same. iii. The Petitioner has been making continuous and consistent imports of the very same goods since the year 2016 and it is for the first time that by the previous SCN dated 25 July 2023 and the present impugned SCN that the Respondents have sought to classify the imported goods under a different tariff heading (Parts of Mobile Phones as against Complete Mobile Phones). iv. The classification by the Petitioner under CTH 85171400/85171219 is held as disputed by the Respondent as the Respondent claims that the said classification is incorrect. Such incorrect classification or declaration by the Petitioner cannot form the basis for a SCN under Section 28(4) of the Act as the same would not fulfill the pre-requisites mandated by Section 28(4) of the Act.
2. The primary grounds raised during arguments by the Respondent in their defence, in respect of issuance of SCN under Section 28(4) of the Act appears to be the following:
i. The Petitioner did not submit the requisite data nor reply and W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 2 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 the same amounts to intentional suppression.
ii. The impugned SCN has been issued under Notification No. 42 of 2019 Customs (NT) dated 18 June 2019 which provides for a supplementary notice to be issued once a notice under Sections 28 or 124 of the Act has been issued under circumstances enumerated therein.
iii. The subject matter of the said SCN is related to different periods and different bills of entries.
ANALYSIS:
3. For convenience, we have reproduced the contents of, besides the common background facts, the two SCNs alongside and underlined the differences between the two, as below:
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25.07.2023 (Annexure P-2) 01.09.2023 (Annexure P-3) ****** ****** "The finding of the Investigation- "The finding of the Investigation- 9.12 The NCTC has suspected that the 9.12 The NCTC has suspected that the declared weight of the good is declared weight of the good is considerably low. However, the same considerably low. However, the same has been verified and found to be 6610 has been verified and found to be 6610 Kgs against the declared weight of Kgs against the declared weight of 6633 Kgs which almost tallies. Vide 6633 Kgs which almost tallies. Vide ‗Electronics and IT Goods 'Electronics and IT Goods (Requirement for Compulsory (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2021. The MeitY Registration) Order, 2021, The MeitY has notified the specific goods on has notified the specific goods on which BIS norms will follow at the which BIS norms will follow at the time of import. It was found that the time of import. It was found that the said order does not cover parts of said order does not cover parts of mobile phones. The goods mentioned mobile phones. The goods mentioned in the alert i.e. BIS Label IN in the alert i.e. BIS Label IN 22*26mm' is only a label meant for 22*26mm' is only a label meant for affixing after completion of the final affixing after completion of the final product and the same also do not fall product and the same also do not fall W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 3 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 within the ambit of the said order. within the ambit of the said order.
Classification of unassembled goods Classification of unassembled goods in respect of imported model in respect of imported model IT5607: IT5607:
9.13 Facts of the case and submissions 9.13 Facts of the case and submissions of the importer reveal that the of the importer reveal that the consignment imported vide B/E No. consignment imported vide B/E No. 2432709 dated 14.09.2022 and invoice 2432709 dated 14.09.2022 and invoice no. 0090048807 contains all the parts no. 0090048807 contains all the parts required for the manufacturing of required for the manufacturing of model No. IT5607 except for the model No. IT5607 except for the battery and camera module. The goods battery and camera module. The goods in respect of model No. IT5607 were in respect of model No. IT5607 were examined by the Chartered Engineer, examined by the Chartered Engineer, who, vide report dated 29.11.2022, who, vide report dated 29.11.2022, reported that ―...they acquire the reported that ―...they acquire the article shape of a mobile phone and article shape of a mobile phone and thus, in light of the above, prima facie thus, in light of the above, prima facie have the essential characteristics of the have the essential characteristics of the article..." Further, an essential feature article..." Further, an essential feature of a mobile phone is communication of a mobile phone is communication between two or more people. All other between two or more people. All other features, viz. camera, torch, earphone features, viz. camera, torch, earphone slot, storage capacity, etc., are added slot, storage capacity, etc., are added features of a mobile phone. Therefore, features of a mobile phone. Therefore, a mobile phone will essentially remain a mobile phone will essentially remain a mobile phone even without a camera a mobile phone even without a camera feature. feature.
10. Applicable legal provision in this 10. Applicable legal provision in this regard is hereunder: regard is hereunder:
Rule 2(a) The General Rules for The Rule 2(a) The General Rules for The Interpretation of Import Tariff read as Interpretation of Import Tariff read as follows: follows:
"2. (a) Any reference in a heading to "2. (a) Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or presented, the incomplete or unfinished articles have the essential unfinished articles have the essential character of the complete or finished character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by classified as complete or finished by W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 4 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 virtue of this rule), presented virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled." unassembled or disassembled."
11. In order to find out that the mobile 11. In order to find out that the mobile parts imported like the camera, Lens, parts imported like the camera, Lens, Cover, Keypad, etc. by themselves Cover, Keypad, etc by themselves have acquired the essential character have acquired the essential character of a mobile phone, it will be relevant of a mobile phone, it will be relevant in this context to refer to HSN in this context to refer to HSN Explanatory Notes to the Rules of Explanatory Notes to the Rules of Interpretation and also to the HSN Interpretation and also to the HSN Explanatory Notes to Section XVI Explanatory Notes to Section XVI thereof for understanding the thereof for understanding the expression incomplete and expression incomplete and unassembled machines. In the unassembled machines. In the Explanatory Notes to Section XVI in Explanatory Notes to Section XVI in HSN, incomplete machines and HSN, incomplete machines and unassembled machines are of the unassembled machines are of the following types:- following types:
Incomplete Machines Incomplete Machines
"Throughout the Section, any "Throughout the Section, any
reference to a machine or apparatus reference to a machine or apparatus
covers not only the complete machine covers not only the complete machine
but also an incomplete machine (i.e., but also an incomplete machine (i.e.,
an assembly of parts so far advanced an assembly of parts so far advanced
that it already has the main essential that it already has the main essential
features of the complete machine). features of the complete machine).
Thus, a machine lacking only a Thus, a machine lacking only a
flywheel, a bed plate, calender rolls, flywheel, a bed plate, calender rolls,
tool holders, etc., is classified in the tool holders, etc., is classified in the same heading as the machine and not same heading as the machine and not in any separate heading provided for in any separate heading provided for parts. Similarly, a machine or parts. Similarly, a machine or apparatus normally incorporating an apparatus normally incorporating an electric motor (e.g., electromechanical electric motor (e.g., electromechanical hand tools of Heading 85.08) is hand tools of Heading 85.08) is classified in the same heading as the classified in the same heading as the corresponding complete machine even corresponding complete machine even if presented without that motor." if presented without that motor."
Unassembled Machines Unassembled Machines
"For convenience of transport many "For convenience of transport, many
machines and apparatus are machines and apparatus are
transported in an unassembled state. transported in an unassembled state.
Although in effect the goods are then a Although in effect the goods are then a
W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 5 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:11.03.2025
10:20:12
collection of parts, they are classified collection of parts, they are classified as being the machine in question and as being the machine in question and not in any separate heading for parts. not in any separate heading for parts.
The same applies to an incomplete The same applies to an incomplete machine having the features of the machine having the features of the complete machine [see Part (IV) complete machine [see Part (IV) above], presented unassembled (see above], presented unassembled (see also in this connection the General also in this connection the General Explanatory Notes to Chapters 84 and Explanatory Notes to Chapters 84 and
85).However, unassembled 85). However, unassembled components in excess of the number components in excess of the number required for a complete machine or required for a complete machine or for an incomplete machine having the for an incomplete machine having the characteristics of a complete machine characteristics of a complete machine are classified in their own appropriate are classified in their own appropriate heading." heading."
11.1 The importer herein imported the 11.1 The importer herein imported the parts designed and manufactured by a parts designed and manufactured by a foreign entity as per their contracts foreign entity as per their contracts resulting in merely assembling the resulting in merely assembling the parts at the site. Therefore, the parts at the site. Therefore, the operation undertaken by them can be operation undertaken by them can be termed a simple assembly operation termed a simple assembly operation falling within the scope of Rule 2(a) of falling within the scope of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules. the Interpretative Rules.
11.2 Thus, the above clearly states that 11.2 Thus, the above clearly states that imported goods can be used to imported goods can be used to assemble a mobile device that can be assemble a mobile device that can be used to communicate or can also be used to communicate or can also be used as a different layout to create a used as a different layout to create a complete set without a camera complete set without a camera module. module.
11.3 Whereas, the importer cited the 11.3 Whereas, the importer cited the judgment dated 23.09.2008 in the judgment dated 23.09.2008 in the matter of Commissioner of Customs, matter of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. M/s Sony India Ltd. New Delhi Vs. M/s Sony India Ltd. (Citation 2008(231) E.L.T 385 (SC)) (Citation 2008(231) E.L.T 385 (SC)) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the had dismissed the appeal filed by the department and upheld the decision of department and upheld the decision of the CESTAT Final Order No. the CESTAT Final Order No. 237/2002-B dated 28.05.2002 in 237/2002-B dated 28.05.2002 in Appeal No. C/122/99-B - Sony India Appeal No. C/122/99-B - Sony India W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 6 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, ICD New Delhi (Citation 2002(143) ICD New Delhi (Citation 2002(143) E.L.T. 411 (Tri-LB). However, the E.L.T. 411 (Tri-LB). However, the facts and circumstances of the case facts and circumstances of the case cited by the importer are different cited by the importer are different from the instant case. In the cited case, from the instant case. In the cited case, the appellant had imported 94 the appellant had imported 94 consignments of various components consignments of various components of CTV, whereas in the instant case, of CTV, whereas in the instant case, goods were brought in a single goods were brought in a single consignment. consignment.
11.4 In contradiction, it appears that 11.4 In contradiction, it appears that the findings in the case of M/s Bird the findings in the case of M/s Bird Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD Tughlakabad Customs (Import), ICD Tughlakabad (CESTAT's Final Order No. (CESTAT's Final Order No. 50362/2020 dated 24.02.2020 in 50362/2020 dated 24.02.2020 in Appeal No. 51007-09 of 2019) are Appeal No. 51007-09 of 2019) are applicable in the instant case. In this applicable in the instant case. In this case, the appellant has been importing case, the appellant has been importing ―Segway‖ products in CKD condition "Segway" products in CKD condition in the form of very assemblies such as in the form of very assemblies such as power assembly, transmission power assembly, transmission assembly, wheel assembly, etc., assembly, wheel assembly, etc., wherein they have filed bills of entry wherein they have filed bills of entry for assessment and clearance of the for assessment and clearance of the imported consignment, declaring the imported consignment, declaring the product as ―CKD Parts of electrically product as "CKD Parts of electrically operated two-wheeler/personal operated two-wheeler/personal transport - lithium ION battery for transport - lithium ION battery for captive use." The product has been captive use." The product has been classified under Customs Tariff classified under Customs Tariff Heading 87149990/87144011.The Heading 87149990/87144011.The Adjudicating Authority ordered Adjudicating Authority ordered classifying the product under CTH classifying the product under CTH 87119091. The Hon'ble CESTAT, 87119091. The Hon'ble CESTAT, after due consideration, held as under: after due consideration, held as under:
"22. It can also be seen that as per the "22. It can also be seen that as per the interpretative rules to the Customs interpretative rules to the Customs Tariff Act, the General Rules for Tariff Act, the General Rules for Interpretation of Schedule II provide Interpretation of Schedule II provide as follows: as follows:
―Rule 2(a): Any reference in a heading "Rule 2(a): Any reference in a W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 7 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 to an article shall be taken to include heading to an article shall be taken to a reference to that article incomplete include a reference to that article or unfinished, provided that, as incomplete or unfinished, provided presented, the incomplete or that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article include a reference to that article complete or finished (or failing to be complete or finished (or failing to be classified as complete or finished by classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), presented virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled." unassembled or disassembled."
23. The above-mentioned Rule 2(a) 23. The above-mentioned Rule 2(a) makes it clear that any product which makes it clear that any product which is imported in the form of completely is imported in the form of completely knocked down (CKD) condition, and if knocked down (CKD) condition, and if such components imported in CKD such components imported in CKD condition have all the essential condition have all the essential ingredients to work as a complete ingredients to work as a complete vehicle after assembly, in that case, vehicle after assembly, in that case, such components need to be classified such components need to be classified as a complete motor vehicle, as a complete motor vehicle, motorcycle, etc." motorcycle, etc."
Therefore, it appears that the ratio of Therefore, it appears that the ratio of the above judgment is applicable in the above judgment is applicable in the instant case. the instant case.
12. The issues were also examined in 12. The issues were also examined in view of the Notification No. 33/2023- view of the Notification No. 33/2023- Customs, dated 27.04.2023, submitted Cutsoms dated 27.04.2023 submitted by the importer on 18.05.2023 (RUD- by the importer on 18.05.2023 (RUD- X) which references Notification No. X) which Notification No. 11/2022- 11/2022-Customs dated 01.02.2022 Customs dated 01.02.2022 & 12/2022- and 12/2022-Customs dated Customs dated 01.022023. It appears 01.02.2023. It appears that the same is that the same is applicable in the case applicable in the case of Hearable or Hearable devices like speakers & Devices like speakers and wearable wearable devices like smart watches devices like smartwatches and not on and not on mobile phones. Hence, the mobile phones. Hence, the same same doesn't appear to be applicable in doesn't appear to be applicable in the the instant case. instant case.
12.1 Hence, the importer was asked to submit details of consignments for the last two years consisting of PCBA W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 8 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 along with other items/inputs for the manufacture of mobile phones, vide office letter dated 25.01.2023 (RUD-
XI), 22.02.2023, and 28.03.2023.
12.2 In response to this office letter, the details of goods imported for the last two years were submitted by the importer vide its letter dated 31.03.2023. However, on perusal of the same, it was noticed that the importer submitted details of Model ‗IT5607' only which was the disputed model in the examined BE No. 2432709 dated 14.09.2022, and the details submitted were not in accordance with the prescribed format mentioned in the said letters.
12.3 Further, the importer, vide email dated 11.05.2023 (RUD-XII), submitted data regarding details of shipments having PCBA for the past two years. On perusal, the Bill of Entry as submitted by the importer was checked from the ICES system.
Accordingly, differential duty has been calculated for the consignments imported in the past 2 years.
13. Initial investigations were around 13. Initial investigations were around Model No. IT5607. Whereas data Model No. IT5607. Whereas data submitted by the importer reveals that submitted by the importer reveals that there has been importation of parts for there has been importation of parts for manufacturing of mobile phones of manufacturing of mobile phones of models other than IT5607, wherein the models other than 1T5607 wherein the shipments/consignments contain shipments/consignments contain PCBA and other parts essential for PCBA and other parts essential for assembly/manufacturing of the mobile assembly/manufacturing of the mobile phones. In other words, it appears that phones. In other words, it appears that provisions of General Rules 2(a) provisions of General Rules 2(a) would also be applicable in these cases would also be applicable in these cases as well. as well.
Redetermination of classification of goods and Computation of 13.1 The importer was asked to submit Differential dutv: import data with respect to past import W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 9 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12
14. Details of differential duty vide this office letter dated 25.01.2023 calculation in respect of the invoices and in response to the same, the containing PCBA for the period of the importer submitted import data for last past two years are attached as two financial year only vide email Annexure A. dated 11.05.2023. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice No 103/2023-24/Gr.
*** 2G/Pr Commr./ICD-lMP/TKD dated
25.07.2023, was issued to importer.
14.1 From the investigations as
detailed above, it appears that the 13.2 Further, the importer was also
importer has misclassified the CTH of asked to submit import data of
the goods imported vide all invoices as remaining past import. However, it
mentioned in Annexure-A in the appeared that neither importer
corresponding Bills of Entry filed by submitted any data nor any reply.
them, resulting in short-payment of Accordingly, import data of the
duty. Therefore, it appears that the importer was retrieved from the ICES
importer has wrongly self-assessed the 2.0 and it was found that the importer
Bills of Entry mentioned in the Table had imported ―PCBA for
above under Section 17(1) of the manufacturing of mobile phones‖ vide
Customs Act, 1962. The impugned Bills of Entry. as detailed in Annexure
goods do not correspond in respect of - A to D attached hereto.
classification, being a complete mobile
set attracting CTH Redetermination of classification of
85171400/85171219 with respect to goods and Computation of
the declaration given in the Bills of Differential duty:
Entry as manufacturing parts of
mobile phones. Further, under the ***
provisions of Section 46(4A) of the
Act, ibid, it is the responsibility of the
14.1 From the above table and as per
importer to ascertain the accuracy of WCO Tariff, it is observed that the information given in the Bill of complete mobile phones were Entry. classifiable under CTH 85171210 (till 31 .12.20 19), CTH 85171219 (after 14.2 In view of the above and 01.01.2020 to 31.01,2022), CTH submission by the importer, it appears 85171400 w. e. f 01.02.2022. that the goods/mobile parts imported vide invoices for the past two years as 14.2 Details of differential duly mentioned in Annexure A have all the calculation in respect of the Invoices components required for the containing PCBA for the period manufacture of the mobile phone starting from 24.08.2018 to which merit classification under tariff 24.07.2023 are attached as Annexure item 85171400 (Applicable BCD @ A to D hereto. The summary of the 20%) instead under differential tariff calculation in Annexure A to D, is as item of mobile parts. hereunder-
15. WHEREAS. a Pre-notice *** W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 10 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 Consultation letter dated 07.07.2023, in compliance to Pre-notice 14.1 From the investigations as Consultation Regulations, 2018. detailed above, it appears that the notified vide Notification No.29/2018- importer has misclassified the goods Cus (N.T) dated 02.04.2018, was viz. Liquid Crystal Module, issued to importer by this office Microphone, Speaker, Front Cover, wherein it was requested to deposit Back Cover, Keypad, Paper Sticker, short levy duty amounting to Rs. Adhesive Tape, Adhesive Type Foam, 5,31,48,005/-, in respect of Bills of Advertising Paper, Antenna, Camera Entry. as mentioned in Annexure-A & Protective Lens, Conductive Fabric, B. Further, the importer was also Speaker Frame, Earphone, Keypad informed of the intention to issue the Dome, LCM Protectiveness, Light notice under Section 28(1) of the Emitting Diode (LED), Loaded Customs Act. 1962 specifying the Printed Circuit Board, Motor, PE bag, grounds on which such notice is Protective Lens, Screw, Tape MYLAR proposed to be issued. However, no etc.", imported vide Bills of Entry as reply against said pre-notice has been mentioned in Annexure - A to D received from the importer till date. resulting in short-payment of duty.
Therefore, it appears that the importer
*** has wrongly self-assessed the
impugned Bills of Entry under Section
17(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The
Impugned goods do not correspond in
respect of classification being a
complete mobile set, which merit
classification under CTH
85171400/85171219/85171210, with
respect to the declaration given in the
Bills of Entry as manufacturing parts
of mobile phones. Further, under
provisions of Section 46(4A) of the
Act, ibid, it is the responsibility of the
importer to ascertain the accuracy of
the information given in the Bill of
Entry.
14.2 In view of the above and
submission by the importer, it appears
that the goods/mobile parts imported
vide Bills of Entry, as detailed in
Annexure-A to D, have all the
components required for the
manufacture of the mobile phone
which merit classification under Tariff
Item 85171400/85171219185171210
instead of under different tariff item of
W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 11 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:11.03.2025
10:20:12
mobile parts as declared by importer
in impugned bill of entry.
***
17. On perusal of the aforementioned 16. On perusal of the aforementioned
Investigation Report, it is observed Investigation Report, it is observed
that the importer has wrongly that the importer has wrongly
classified said goods by suppressing classified the said goods by
the fact that the said goods are suppressing the fact that the said
complete mobile set in CKD goods are complete mobile sets in
condition. It was because of the timely CKD condition. It was because of the
intervention of the investigation timely intervention of the investigation
agency the said fact came to light agency that the said fact came to light,
which proves that the importer had which proves that the importer had
intentionally suppressed the facts and intentionally suppressed the facts and
evaded applicable customs duty which evaded applicable customs duty which
resulted in short payment of duty of resulted in short payment of duty of
Rs. Rs.5,30,87,373/-, as detailed in Rs. 1,11,21,12,551/-,as detailed in
Annexure-A & B, and the same is Annexure-A to D, and the same is
recoverable under Section 28(1) of the recoverable under Section 28(4) of the
Customs Act, 1962 along with interest Customs Act, 1962, along with
under Section 28AA of the act ibid. interest under Section 28AA of the
Act ibid.
17.1 The importer by their aforesaid 16.1 The importer by their aforesaid
act of omission and commission has act of omission and commission has
contravened the provisions of Section contravened the provisions of Section
46(4) and 46(4A) of the Customs 46(4) and 46(4A) of the Customs Act,
Act,1962 in as much they have failed 1962 in as much as they have failed to
to furnish correct particulars with furnish correct particulars with respect
respect to description and to the description and classification of
classification of the said goods. the said goods. Section 111(m) of the
Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, Customs Act, 1962, provides that any
1962 provides that any goods which goods which do not correspond in
do not correspond in respect of value respect of value or in any other
or in any other particular with the particular with the entry made under
entry made under this Act, are liable to this Act, are liable to confiscation. As confiscation. As the importer had mis- the importer had mis-declared the declared the value of the goods with value of the goods with an intention to an intention to evade proper Customs evade proper customs duties against Duties against the goods imported vide the goods imported vide impugned impugned Bills of Entry, as detailed in Bills of Entry, as detailed in Annexure-A & B, the same are liable Annexure-A to D, the same are liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. of the Customs Act, 1962.
W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 12 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:1217.2 Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs 16.2 SECTION 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that any person, Act, 1962 inter alia provides that who, in relation to any goods, does or where the duty has not been levied or omits to do any act which act or has been short-levied or the interest omission would render such goods has not been charged or paid or has liable to confiscation under section been partly paid or the duty or interest 111, or abets the doing or omission of has been erroneously refunded by such an act, shall be liable, in the case reason of collusion or any wilful mis- of dutiable goods, other than statement or suppression of facts, the prohibited goods, subject to the person who is liable to pay the duty or provisions of section 114A, to a interest, as the case may be, as penalty under this Section. In the determined under sub-section (8) of present case. the importer has mis- Section 28, shall also be liable to pay a declared description of the impugned penalty. In the present case, the goods and evaded applicable Customs importer has wilfully suppressed vital Duties in the Bills of Entry, as facts with respect to the description of elaborated in above, and thus, the the impugned goods in the Bills of importer is liable to penalty under Entry, as elaborated above, and thus, Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, the importer is liable to penalty under 1962. Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, with respect to the said bills of Entry.
18. Now, therefore, on the basis of the 17. Now, therefore, on the basis of the discussion here-in-above and discussion hereinabove and investigations into the matter, M/s. investigations into the matter, M/s. Ismartu India Pvt Ltd, D-197, 198, Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd., D-197, 198, 199, Sector- 63, Noida, Gautam Budh 199, Sector-63, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, 201301 (IEC: Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, 201301 (IEC:
0516984080), is hereby called upon to 0516984080), is hereby called upon to Show Cause to the Principal Show Cause to the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Import Commissioner of Customs, Import Commissionerate, Inland Container Commissionerate, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, Delhi - 110 020, Depot, Tughlakabad, Delhi - 110020, in writing within 30 days of receipt of in writing within 30 days of receipt of this notice as to why:- this notice as to why:
i. The Bill of Entry No.2432709 dated i. The classification of the goods, 14.09.2022, should not be finalized by imported vide Bills of Entry as changing the classification to CTH detailed in Annexure-A to D, should 85171400 under Section 18(2) of the not be rejected and the same should Customs Act, 1962; not be classified under CTH 85171219/85171210/85171400 as ii. Total differential duty amounting to mentioned in the respective annexures;
Rs.60,632/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 13 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 Six Hundred and Thirty Two only), in ii. The goods having an assessable respect of Bill of Entry No. 2432709 value of Rs. 5,83,12,84,286/- (Rupees dated 14.09.2022, should not be Five Hundred Eighty-Three Crore, demanded and recovered from the Twelve Lakh, Eighty-Four importer under Section 28(1) of the Thousand, Two Hundred and Customs Act. 1962 along with Eighty-Six only), imported vide Bills applicable interest under Section of Entry as detailed in Annexure-A to 28AA of the Act ibid; an D, should not be held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of iii. Penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962; Customs Act, 1962 of the Customs Act, 1962, should not be imposed on iii. Total differential duty amounting the importer for improper importation to Rs. 1,11,21,12,550/- (Rupees One of goods imported vide Bill of Entry Hundred Eleven Crore, Twenty- No.2432709 dated 14.09.2022 and One Lakh, Twelve Thousand, Five evasion of Customs duty thereof. Hundred and Fifty only), as detailed in Annexure-A to D, should not be iv. The Bank Guarantee of demanded and recovered from the Rs.37,26,502/- and Rs.3,00,000/-, importer under Section 28(4) of the should not be appropriated towards Customs Act, 1962, along with Fine and Penalty imposed upon the applicable interest under Section importer in respect of Bill of Entry 28AA of the Act ibid; and No.2432709 dated 14.09.2022 iv. Penalty under Section v. The classification of the goods, 114A/112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, imported vide Bills of Entry as 1962, should not be imposed on the detailed in Annexure-A & Annexure- importer for improper importation of B, should not be rejected and the same goods and evasion of customs duty.‖ should not be classified under CTH 85171400;
vi. The goods having re-determined assessable value of Rs.1,46,83,51,738/-, imported vide Bills of Entry as detailed in Annexure-
A and Annexure-B, should not be held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962;
vii. Total differential duty amounting to Rs.5,30,87,373/- (Rupees Five Crore Thirty Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Three only), as detailed in Annexure -
A & Annexure-B. should not be demanded and recovered from the W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 14 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 importer under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with applicable interest under Section 28AA of the Act ibid; and viii. Penalty under Section 112a (ii) of Customs Act, 1962 of the Customs Act, 1962, should not be imposed on the importer for improper importation of goods and evasion of Customs duty, in respect of Bills of Entry other than Bill of Entry No. 2432709 dated 14.09.2022;‖
19. This show cause notice is being 18. This show cause notice is being issued without prejudice to any other issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken in respect of action that may be taken in respect of the impugned goods and/or the the impugned goods and/or the persons/company etc., mentioned in persons/company etc., mentioned in the notice, under the provisions of the the notice, under the provisions of the Customs Act. 1962 and/or any other Customs Act. 1962 and/or any other law for the time being in force. law for the time being in force.
20. The aforesaid noticee are to submit 19. The aforesaid noticee are to submit their written reply within the stipulated their written reply within the stipulated time. In their reply, they should clearly time. In their reply, they should clearly state whether they wish to be heard in state whether they wish to be heard in person or not. In case, they do not person or not. In case, they do not reply or no such requests is made in reply or no such requests is made in their reply or they do not appear their reply or they do not appear before the adjudicating authority on before the adjudicating authority on the date and time fixed, without any the date and time fixed, without any sufficient cause, the case will be sufficient cause, the case will be decided ex-parte on the basis of decided ex-parte on the basis of available records without any further available records without any further reference to them. reference to them.
21. The Department reserves its right 20. The Department reserves its right to add, amend, modify, etc. this notice to add, amend, modify, etc. this notice based on any fresh facts or evidence based on any fresh facts or evidence which may come to the notice of the which may come to the notice of the Department after the issue of this Department after the issue of this notice but prior to adjudication notice but prior to adjudication thereof. thereof.
22. The notices have the option to 21. The notices have the option to W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 15 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 make an application under Section make an application under Section 127(B) of the Customs Act, 1962 prior 127(B) of the Customs Act, 1962 prior to adjudication of this notice, to the to adjudication of this notice, to the Settlement Commissioner to have the Settlement Commissioner to have the case settled, in such form and in such case settled, in such form and in such manner, as specified in the Rules. manner, as specified in the Rules.
23. List of the documents relied upon 22. List of the documents relied upon in this notice (RUDs) enclosed with in this notice (RUDs) enclosed with this show cause notice is an integral this show cause notice is an integral part of this show cause notice which is part of this show cause notice which is also being served through email of the also being served through email of the noticee. noticee.
***** ***** TWO SEPARATE NOTICES UNDER SECTIONS 28(1) AND 28(4) IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE ISSUED:
4. A bare perusal would show that the two SCNs are identical in almost every respect except for the differences as highlighted. Apart from the more obvious differences relating to the Notices being under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) and the corresponding penalty provisions being Sections 112 and 114A which are consequential upon the Section under which the notices are issued, some of the differences, inter alia, are the periods to which they pertain, the invoices and quantities of the goods therein.
5. Interestingly, both notices conclude that ―the importer has wrongly classified said goods by suppressing the fact that the said goods are complete mobile set in CKD condition. It was because of the timely intervention of the investigation agency that the said fact came to light which proves that the importer had intentionally suppressed the facts ......‖, but chooses to invoke Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Act, respectively in the two notices.
6. The SCNs also have identically worded paragraphs with W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 16 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 different numbers which further conclude as follows:
―The importer by their aforesaid act of omission and commission has contravened the provisions of Section 46(4) and 46(4A) of the Customs Act, 1962 in as much they have failed to furnish correct particulars with respect to description and classification of the said goods. Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act, are liable to confiscation As the importer had mis-declared the value of the goods with an intention to evade proper Customs Duties against the goods imported vide impugned Bills of Entry, as detailed in Annexure‖ _____, ―the same are liable to confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962.‖
7. Section 28 of the Act, as relevant, reads as follows:
"Section 28. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded.
(1) Where any duty has not been levied or not paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, or any interest payable has not been paid, part-paid or erroneously refunded, for any reason other than the reasons of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, --
(a). the proper officer shall, within two years from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty or interest which has not been so levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice:
Provided that before issuing notice, the proper officer shall hold pre-notice consultation with the person chargeable with duty or interest in such manner as may be prescribed;
(b). the person chargeable with the duty or interest, may pay, before service of notice under clause (a), on the basis of--
(i) his own ascertainment of such duty; or
(ii) the duty ascertained by the proper officer,
the amount of duty along with the interest payable thereon under section 28AA or the amount of interest which has not been so paid or part-paid:
Provided that the proper officer shall not serve such show-cause notice, where the amount involved is less than rupees one hundred.
*** (4) Where any duty has not been levied or not paid or has been W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 17 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, or interest payable has not been paid, part-paid or erroneously refunded, by reason of--
(a) collusion; or
(b) any wilful mis-statement; or
(c) suppression of facts, by the importer or the exporter or the agent or employee of the importer or exporter, the proper officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with duty or interest which has not been so levied or not paid or which has been so short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice.
*** (7A) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a) of sub-section (1) or in sub-section (4), the proper officer may issue a supplementary notice under such circumstances and in such manner as may be prescribed, and the provisions of this section shall apply to such supplementary notice as if it was issued under the said sub-section (1) or sub-section (4).
......‖
8. Section 28 of the Act provides for two separate types of notices:
- one under Section 28(1) for all notices to be issued where the elements of Section 28(4) of the Act are absent, namely, those of collusion, wilful mis-statement and suppression: meaning thereby that it is only in those circumstances where Section 28(4) of the Act is not attracted that a Notice under Section 28(1) of the Act is issued. The other is under Section 28(4) and such a notice may come to be issued provided it fulfils the requirements of the same.
9. Notices under Section 28(1) and Section 28(4) operate in different scenarios and even by an exaggerated stretch, cannot possibly be said to be interchangeably issued.
10. In the present case, a prior notice under Section 28(1) of the Act had already come to be issued, in respect of similar goods, with a similar alleged ―mis-declaration‖. Both notices have the benefit of the W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 18 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 reports dated 29 November 2022 and 05 January 2023 by the Chartered Engineer engaged by the Respondents.
11. Surely, two notices with (i) an almost identical factual matrix,
(ii) relying upon the same reports by a Chartered Engineer and (iii) with almost identical conclusions cannot result in two different Notices under two different sub-sections, especially when one [Section 28(1)] can operate only in the absence of the conditions prescribed in the second [Section 28(4)].
12. The issuance of the impugned Show Cause Notice, under the said facts and circumstances, is clearly unsustainable.
CHANGE OF OPINION:
13. The fact that the same officer, within a span of just 6 weeks, presented with an almost identical set of facts, has chosen to issue the two notices under different Sections, would also, in our view taint the impugned SCN with the vice of a ―change of opinion‖ and for that reason too, render it unsustainable.
14. We would refer favourably to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of ―change of opinion‖ as follows:
State of U.P. v. Aryaverth Chawal Udyog, (2015) 17 SCC 324; Commr. of Customs v. G.C. Jain, (2011) 12 SCC 713; Prabhu Steel Industries Ltd. v. CCE, (1998) 1 SCC 303.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Aryaverth Chawal Udyog, (2015) 17 SCC 324, (3-Judges) while contemplating on requisite parameters for „change of opinion‟ by the authorities held that:
W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 19 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12"29. The standard of reason exercised by the assessing authority is laid down as that of an honest and prudent person who would act on reasonable grounds and come to a cogent conclusion. The necessary sequitur is that a mere change of opinion while perusing the same material cannot be a ―reason to believe‖ that a case of escaped assessment exists requiring assessment proceedings to be reopened. (See Binani Industries Ltd. v. CCT [Binani Industries Ltd. v. CCT, (2007) 15 SCC 435]; A.L.A. Firm v. CIT [A.L.A. Firm v. CIT, (1991) 2 SCC 558]). If a conscious application of mind is made to the relevant facts and material available or existing at the relevant point of time while making the assessment and again a different or divergent view is reached, it would tantamount to ―change of opinion‖. If an assessing authority forms an opinion during the original assessment proceedings on the basis of material facts and subsequently finds it to be erroneous; it is not a valid reason under the law for reassessment. Thus, reason to believe cannot be said to be the subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority but means an objective view on the disclosed information in the particular case and must be based on firm and concrete facts that some income has escaped assessment.
30. In case of there being a change of opinion, there must necessarily be a nexus that requires to be established between the ―change of opinion‖ and the material present before the assessing authority. Discovery of an inadvertent mistake or non- application of mind during assessment would not be a justified ground to reinitiate proceedings under Section 21(1) of the Act on the basis of change in subjective opinion (CIT v. Dinesh Chandra H. Shah [CIT v. Dinesh Chandra H. Shah, (1972) 3 SCC 231] ; CIT v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur [CIT v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur, (1975) 4 SCC 360 : 1975 SCC (Tax) 316]).‖
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commr. of Customs v. G.C. Jain, (2011) 12 SCC 713 rejected the ‗change of opinion' of the Authorities in the following terms:
"29. In the instant case the respondents had declared the goods as butyl acrylate monomer with correct classification of the same and the word ―adhesive‖ was added in the ex-bond bill as per the respondents' understanding that BAM is an adhesive. In these circumstances it was for the Revenue to check whether BAM was covered by the expression ―adhesive‖ or not and if even after drawing of samples they have allowed the clearances to be effective as an adhesive the respondents cannot be held responsible for the same and subsequently, if the Revenue has W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 20 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 changed their opinion as regards the adhesive character of BAM, extended period cannot be invoked against them. As such, we are of the view that the demand of duty in respect of the 14 consignments is also barred by limitation.‖
17. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhu Steel Industries Ltd. v. CCE, (1998) 1 SCC 303 held that:
"4. From the admitted facts of this case there can be no doubt that none of the requirements of the above-quoted proviso is satisfied in the present case to give to the Department the benefit of the larger period of limitation. The removal of the goods was in accordance with the approved classification list and all the material facts were before the authorities concerned. Simply because there was a change in opinion as to the correct description of the input, it cannot be said that the case falls within the ambit of proviso to Section 11-A. Admittedly, there was no concealment of the true facts and the classification list submitted by the assessee had been duly approved under which the removal was made.‖ SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DOES NOT FULFILL REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 28(4):
18. In order for the Impugned SCN to survive, it would, independently, have to satisfy the requirements of Section 28(4), which we have already extracted hereinabove.
19. The entire case of the Respondent at Para 16 of the SCN is that the Petitioner ―...has wrongly classified said goods by suppressing the fact that the said goods are complete mobile set in CKD condition.‖. This apparently was done intentionally to evade payment of Customs Duty.
20. The records bear out the fact that the Petitioner has made a classification of the goods and in support of the same has disclosed all the relevant invoices and other importation details.
21. The Petitioner's employee had initially made a statement in W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 21 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 respect of the goods. However, the said employee, at a later stage, retracted from the same and the Respondent, considering this ―contradiction‖ in the stand of the Petitioner, got the goods examined by a Chartered Engineer for his opinion.
22. The Chartered Engineer gave his opinion and followed it up with a further opinion.
23. Without adverting to the merits of the opinion, the fact that there existed ambiguity in the mind of the Respondent with respect to the correct classification of the goods, which doubt could only be based on a conspectus of all the facts before the parties, itself negates any ―suppression‖. This is also evidenced by the fact that the Chartered Engineer, who gave his report, has drawn the samples from the consignments under question, and which goods were already in the Respondent's knowledge. There was nothing new that was brought to the table.
24. The doubt in respect of the classification of the goods was based on the complete disclosure by the Petitioner of the goods imported by it, meaning thereby, that there was no suppression of the relevant facts.
25. Based on the set of facts as they presented themselves, both parties are entitled to make contesting claims. However, a genuine disagreement, as in the present case, of the classification of the goods cannot possibly be elevated to ―suppression‖.
26. The Respondents have not referred to ―collusion‖ or ―wilful misstatement of facts‖ to support the issue of the SCN under Section 28(4).
27. Nonetheless, it is apparent that there is no ―collusion‖ and there W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 22 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 cannot even be a ―wilful misstatement of facts‖ as all the imported goods with their description were before the Respondent and the entire dispute related to their classification.
28. It would appear that in the present case, there is a mere incantation of the provisions of the Section without any substance to back it up leading to the issuance of two SCNs under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 28.
29. In the counter, the Respondents have adverted to the alleged non-submission by the Petitioners of details of their prior imports in support of the allegation of ―suppression‖. This is a bogey that needs to be rejected resoundingly. The data allegedly suppressed was data that was available with the Respondents themselves and was in fact, admittedly, retrieved by them, from their own system. How can data that was already available with the Department be data that was ―suppressed‖?
30. Since we have held that the impugned SCN does not fulfill the requirements of the Section, the Respondent would also cease to have the benefit of an extended period of limitation for the purpose of its issuance.
IMPUGNED NOTICE IS NOT A SUPPLEMENTARY NOTICE:
31. The respondents, in Paragraph 9 of their Counter Affidavit, seek to derive sustenance from the notification dated 18 June 2019. Para 9 reads as follows:
―9. The Respondents would also seek to highlight Notification 42/2019- Customs (NT) dated 18.06.2019 which provides for a supplementary notice to be issued once a notice under Section 28 or Section 124 of the Act has been issued. The circumstances in which such supplementary notices can be issued are as W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 23 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 follows:
i. In cases where there is a difference in the quantum of duty demanded in such cases;
ii. For invoking penal action against a person under the provisions of the Act in addition to those charged in the said notice;
iii. For invoking additional section / sections of the Act in such notice;
iv. In cases where there is additional evidence which may have a significant bearing on the case.‖
32. The Respondent, in the Counter, makes a bald averment without specifying under which of the said heads the impugned notice would fall. In view of the abject failure on behalf of the Respondents to state either in the SCN itself or even specify as to which of the four heads enumerated in the counter, the alleged impugned notice is being issued as a ―Supplementary Notice‖, we are of the view that the said contention needs to be rejected.
33. Additionally, Section 28 of the Act, by its very nature posits, in a given set of facts and circumstances, the issuance of a SCN either under Section 28(1) or under Section 28(4) of the Act and not under both. Under the circumstances, we are unable to agree that the impugned SCN under section 28(4) of the Act post the issuance of the SCN under Section 28(1) could be termed a ―Supplementary Notice‖.
34. While both parties also sought to address arguments on the classification of the goods, with the Respondent relying primarily upon Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Harmonised Systems, since we are of the opinion, for the reasons stated above, that the impugned SCN dated 01 September 2023 under Section 28(4) of the Act is not maintainable, we do not propose to examine the said issue. Needless to state that the said question may be examined on merits by the concerned forum in appropriate W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 24 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12 proceedings.
35. Resultantly, and for the reasons afore-stated, we are of the view that the impugned SCN under Section 28(4) is liable to be set aside.
36. We allow the Petition in the above terms and dispose of the pending application(s).
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
MARCH 07, 2025/nd/er W.P.(C) 15199/2023 Page 25 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:20:12