https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783549 The dominant issue was whether adjudication of a customs SCN issued under s. 28 of the Customs Act was vitiated because an extension of time for passing the order was not communicated to the importer. The HC held that s. 28(9) permits extension but does not mandate prior intimation, unlike s. 110(2) which expressly requires informing the person before extending time; therefore, non-communication, though generally desirable, was not a fatal illegality. Noting also that the importer had not filed a substantive reply on merits to refute the verification email regarding the COOs, the HC declined writ interference and left the importer to the statutory appeal, permitting filing within one month. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783549 The dominant issue was whether adjudication of a customs SCN issued under s. 28 of the Customs Act was vitiated because an extension of time for passing the order was not communicated to the importer. The HC held that s. 28(9) permits extension but does not mandate prior intimation, unlike s. 110(2) which expressly requires informing the person before extending time; therefore, non-communication, though generally desirable, was not a fatal illegality. Noting also that the importer had not filed a substantive reply on merits to refute the verification email regarding the COOs, the HC declined writ interference and left the importer to the statutory appeal, permitting filing within one month. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783549