- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6030 WP No. 103040 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 103040 OF 2018 (T-TAR) BETWEEN: M/S. DODLA DAIRY LTD., SY.NO.163 AND 164, INDRAGI (V), INDRA NAGAR, TAL AND DIST: KOPPAL, KARNATAKA-583 228, (REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD HR AND ADMIN MR. A. MADHUSUDHANA REDDY S/O. A PITCHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS). … PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.G.CHIDANAND URS., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT-I), NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 00. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, 2ND FLOOR, NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH.M.KHARVI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. GIRISH.S.HULAMANI., ADVOCATE R2-3) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6030 WP No. 103040 of 2018 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.B.G.Chidanand Urs., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Girish S.Hulmani., counsel for respondents 2 and 3 have appeared in person. 2. A show cause notice was issued on 30.03.2016. The petitioner suitably replied for the same on 07.05.2016. The OIO was passed on 23.09.2016. The petitioner’s grievance is that the OIO was not communicated in the prescribed mode. The petitioner contends that it came to know about the OIO only on 27.10.2017 and immediately filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) at Mumbai. However, the Department contends that OIO was communicated to the petitioner by speed post in 2016 itself. The appeal came to be rejected as time barred. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6030 WP No. 103040 of 2018 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel Sri.B.G.Chidanand Urs., in presenting is arguments strenuously urged that the order in original was passed in 2016, as of that date, the mode of service of notice or order was by registered post or by such other courier as may be approved by the Commissioner of Customs. By way of reply to this contention, Counsel Sri.Girish S.Hulmani., submits that a detailed statement of objections is filed and the same may be taken note of. Counsel in presenting his arguments vehemently contends that OIO was duly communicated to the petitioner by speed post and the petitioner did not approach the authority well in time. Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed. He placed reliance on the following decision: NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED VS. ANIL KHOLI reported in AIR 2021 SC 4339. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6030 WP No. 103040 of 2018 5. The short controversy is about the mode of service of the order in original. Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 was substituted by Act 13 of 2018 (w.e.f. 29.03.2018). Section 153, before substitution, stood as under: ”153. Service of order, decision, etc., - Any order or decision passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act, shall be served,- (a) by tendering the order, decision, summons or notice or sending it by registered post or by such courier as may be approved by the Commissioner of Customs; (b) if the order, decision, summons of notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing it on the notice board of the customs house”. The only mode of service was by registered post. The service of order, decision and etc., by speed post was not provided prior to 2018. In the present case, the order was not communicated by registered post. Therefore, the date of communication of OIO must be taken as 27.10.2017. The appeal was filed well in time i.e., on 07.11.2017. Hence, the rejection of the appeal as time barred is unsustainable in law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6030 WP No. 103040 of 2018 Therefore, this Court deems it proper to quash the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 6. Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 has cited a decision referred to supra, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its facts. The present case is also tested in light of the aforesaid decision. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:23.09.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Import-I) in No.40/ADC/KV/Gr-V/2016-17 vide Annexure-C and the order dated:22.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in OIA No.MUM-CUSTM- SMP-298/2017-18 vide Annexure-E are quashed. This Court has held that the appeal filed by the petitioner is well in time hence, A direction is issued to the Authority to dispose of the appeal on the merits of the case. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6030 WP No. 103040 of 2018 Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of, and the interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40 JMJ 11.08.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING) ORAL ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2025 Sri.B.Venugopal., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Girish S.Hulmani., counsel for respondents 2 and 3 have appeared through video conferencing. Counsel Sri.Girish S.Hulmani., submits that an application is filed in I.A.No.1/2025 for correction of the order dated 04.04.2025. Counsel further submits that Annexure-C is to be retained and Annexure-E is to be quashed. Counsel, therefore, submits that the application may be allowed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6030 WP No. 103040 of 2018 Counsel Sri.B.Venugopal., for the petitioner submits that he has no objection to allow the application. The oral submission made by counsel for the respective parties is placed on record. Perused the application and the order dated 04.04.2025 with utmost care. This Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 held that the appeal filed by the petitioner is well in time and a direction was issued to the Authority concerned to dispose of the appeal on the merits of the case. However, looking into the prayer sought by the petitioner, the orders passed by both the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority vide Annexures-C and E were quashed. Since the Appellate Authority was directed to dispose of the case on the merits of the case, the order in original is required to be retained. Hence, the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Import-I) in No.40/ADC/KV/Gr-V/2016-17 vide Annexure-C is retained. The order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in OIA No.MUM-CUSTM- SMP-298/2017-18 vide Annexure-E remain quashed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6030 WP No. 103040 of 2018 Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 for correction of the order dated 04.04.2025 is allowed. The rest of the order stands as it is. This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 04.04.2025. The Registry concerned is hereby directed to issue fresh certified copy of this order to counsel for the respective parties. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN/MRP/VNR List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1