Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs Union Of India & Anr on 22 September, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14521/2025 & CM APPL.59587/2025
M/S PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dil Jit Singh Ahluwalia & Mr.
Angad Ahluwalia, Advs. with Petitioner
in person. (M: 8810450749)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Arijit Dixit, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
ORDER
% 22.09.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- M/s Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 12th September 2025, passed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Import) (hereinafter 'impugned order').
3. On the last dated of hearing i.e., 19th September, 2025, Mr. Arijit Dixit, ld. Counsel had appeared for the Respondents, and directions were given as under:-
"4. Let the copy of the writ petition be supplied, and proper instructions shall be sought in this matter
5. The Customs Department shall produce whatever data is available with it, which forms the basis of the impugned order.
6. Additionally, it is made clear that the Petitioner would also have to produce charts, to show that the products are not being undervalued"
W.P.(C) 14521/2025 Page 1 of 7This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:46:22
4. Today, matter has been heard in considerable detail. The case of the Petitioner is that, Concentrate of Alcoholic Beverages (hereinafter 'CAB'), which is the subject product, forms the raw material in manufacture of Scotch Whisky.
5. The said CAB is usually imported from Scotland, and there are nearly 45 importers who import the same. CAB is then processed, mixed and various ingredients are added, which leads to the final product. It is pertinent to note that the said CAB is itself unbranded, however, the final product is usually branded.
6. Mr. Ahluwalia, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, for the first limb of the challenge, places reliance upon the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter 'CVR, 2007) and submits that, in order to determine whether there has been undervaluation by the importer or not, the definition of 'similar goods' under Rule 2(1)(f) of CVR, 2007, would have to be considered. It is further submitted that, in order to make this determination, the value of the importer has to be compared with the lowest value of similar goods imported, and various other parameters have to be checked, which are set out in Rule 2(1)(f) of CVR, 2007.
7. Additionally, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also relies on Rule 5 of CVR, 2007.
8. Further, ld. Counsel for Petitioner has placed on record a chart to argue that there are several similar importers, whose import values at the stage of import, is lesser than that of the Petitioner. However, it is contended that both the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter 'DRI'), and the Adjudicating Authority have only taken the price declared by Allied Blenders W.P.(C) 14521/2025 Page 2 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:46:22 and Distillers (hereinafter 'ABD') as the comparable lowest price. According to the ld. Counsel for Petitioner, the said approach, is completely contrary to aforesaid Rules under CVR, 2007. In fact, the Petitioner has vehemently challenged the reasoning given in the impugned order.
9. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner argues that the second limb of the challenge is that, despite the orders having been passed for supply of the relevant import data, the Customs Department has only chosen to supply data relating to the quantity of imports, and not the price. It is contended that this has resulted in an incorrect conclusion by the Customs Department, which has now, therefore, imposed a loading charge of 67.49 % on all consignments for the period between 2011 to 2020, as also for future imports.
10. It is further submitted by ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, 'CESTAT') has considered similar matters and has, in fact, held that the Customs Department cannot pick and choose any particular party for determining the lowest value, and all the relevant data would have to be considered. The following are the orders, which are relied upon:-
● Seagram Manufacturing Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi 2003(154) ELT 610 (Tri-Del) ● M/s Seagram Mfg. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, Misc. Order No. 238/03-NB (A) dated 05th December, 2003 ● Seagram Manufacturing Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Delhi (2005 SCC Online CESTAT 263), dated 29th June 2005 W.P.(C) 14521/2025 Page 3 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:46:22
11. Mr. Arijit, ld. Counsel on behalf of the Customs Department submits that the DRI had in its investigation furnished the relevant data to the Petitioner. According to the DRI, similar goods would have to be determined on the basis of quantity imported, and parties who make negligible imports cannot be considered. On the basis of quantity, 45 importers were considered.
It is submitted that, even if the top 10 importers are taken into consideration, then also ABD is the closest similar importer to the Petitioner.
12. Moreover, according to the Customs Department, the 45 importers who have been considered, constitute 97% of the total imports of CAB during the period of 2011-2020. It is submitted that Petitioner itself constitutes 42.17% of the imports. Thereby, the Customs Department's stand is that, everyone, except ABD, would not be liable to be considered, as those parties have either imported from related parties, or their goods have only been provisionally assessed, and final assessments are yet to be done. Thus, for the purpose of comparison, only an unrelated party import ought to be considered, failing which the same would be unfair.
13. The Court has heard the Counsels for the parties. In terms of Rule 2(1)(f) and Rule 5 of CVR, 2007, while determining similar goods, the Customs Department has to take into consideration the quality, reputation as also the existence of the Trademark. The relevant provisions reads as under:
"2(1)(f) "similar goods" means imported goods-
(i) which although not alike in all respects, have like characteristics and like component materials which enable them to perform the same functions and to be commercially interchangeable with the goods being valued having regard to the quality, reputation and the existence of trade mark;W.P.(C) 14521/2025 Page 4 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:46:22
(ii) produced in the country in which the goods being valued were produced; and
(iii) produced by the same person who produced the goods being valued, or where no such goods are available, goods produced by a different person. but shall not include imported goods where engineering, development work, art work, design work, plan or sketch undertaken in India were completed directly or indirectly by the buyer on these imported goods free of charge or at a reduced cost for use in connection with the production and sale for export of these imported goods.
xxx xxx xxx
5. Transaction value of similar goods.-
(1)Subject to the provisions of rule 3, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value of similar goods sold for export to India and imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued:
Provided that such transaction value shall not be the value of the goods provisionally assessed under section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(2) The provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1), sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3), of rule 4 shall, mutatis mutandis, also apply in respect of similar goods."
14. The Petitioner's case is that the similar goods cannot be based on imported quantity. This is argued on the strength of order dated 29th June, 2025 passed by the CESTAT in Seagram India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi 2005 SCC OnLine CESTAT 263, the Tribunal held that the quantity cannot be considered in such matters.
W.P.(C) 14521/2025 Page 5 of 7This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:46:22
15. The chart, which has been produced by the Petitioner and the Respondent, would show that the parties, who are taken into consideration for making the determination, are almost the same. The Customs Department considers quantity as the main plank, however, Petitioner urges that quality, price etc. deserve to be considered and not quantity.
16. What would be the appropriate standards to be adopted for determining 'similar goods' for the purpose of deciding whether any goods have been undervalued or not, is the moot question. The aforesaid issue, in the context of the CVR, 2007, requires adjudication by this Court.
17. In the present case, the Petitioner has prima facie made out a case for grant of interim relief, as it appears, that the lowest value being determined by comparing import with prices of one party may not be the correct approach. The exclusion of a number of similarly placed parties may also not be fully justified. It cannot be said that all the other importers would be liable to be excluded, only because they are under provisional assessment, or that they are importing from related parties. While the said two considerations would be relevant considerations, the price and other criteria cannot be completely excluded from the zone of consideration.
18. Issue notice. Mr. Arijit Dixit, ld. Counsel accepts notice.
19. Let a counter-affidavit be filed by the Customs Department, within four weeks
20. Thereafter, rejoinder thereto, may be filed within four weeks.
21. In the meantime, since there has been an appropriation of Rs. 92 crores from the Petitioner, by the Customs Department, at this stage, no orders are being passed in respect thereof. However, the impugned order shall remain stayed, insofar as it is sought to be applied for future imports.
W.P.(C) 14521/2025 Page 6 of 7This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:46:22
22. It is made clear that for future imports where there is under valuation as per the Customs Department, the computation of the loading charges shall be made by the Customs Department, and the amount payable shall be communicated to the Petitioner. If the Petitioner does not succeed in this petition, the Petitioner's undertaking to pay the said loading charges, subject to any remedy, which Petitioner may avail of, is recorded in this matter. Let an undertaking of an official duly competent to file the same, be tendered within two weeks.
23. List on 11th December, 2025 on top of board.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
SHAIL JAIN, J.
SEPTEMBER 22, 2025/dk/ng/sm W.P.(C) 14521/2025 Page 7 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:46:22