CRIMINAL APPEAL 50132 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CUSAA82/2025,CMAPPLs.29338/2025,29340/2025&29341/2025M/S THREEPENCE CRAFT.....Appellant29341/2025M/S THREEPENCE CRAFT.....Appellant

Through:Mr. Chinmaya Seth, Mr. A.K. Seth,Ms. Palak Mathur & Mr. Varun Phore,Ms. Palak Mathur & Mr. Varun Phore,

Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

.....RespondentThrough:MrAakarshSrivastava,SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr. AnandPandey, Adv.

CORAM:JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAO R R%15.05.2025

1.This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.CM APPLs. 29338/2025, 29340/2025 & 29341/2025 (for exemptions)

2.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.CUSAA 82/2025 & CM APPL. 29339/2025

3.The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant– M/s ThreepenceCraft challenging the Defect Miscellaneous Order No. 50132/ 2025 dated10th February, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) passed by theCustoms, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘theCESTAT’).

4.Vide the impugned order, the CESTAT has dismissed the applicationfiled by the Appellant i.e., Customs Condonation of Delay Application No.51908 of 2024 on the ground of delay.

This is digitally signed order.

5.The brief background of this case is that an investigation was conductedagainst the Appellant Company and its Partners on the allegation that certaingoods were exported by them which were highly over-valued, only with theintention to earn duty drawbacks.

6.Pursuant to the investigation, Show Cause Notice was issued upontheAppellantCompanyon14[th]August,2013bytheAdditionalCommissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Delhi-IV, Faridabad and adetailed reply dated 27th June, 2016 was filed. Thereafter, the Order-in-Original bearing no. 44/JC/PPG/233-47/19-20 was passed on 26[th]September,2016. The same was further challenged by the Appellant along with theDepartment before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

7.Vide order dated 28[th]May, 2019, the Commissioner of Customs(Appeal) upheld the Order-in-Original dated 26th September, 2016. It wasfurther held that the goods were exported by the Appellant company underfraudulent duty drawback claims, rejecting 153 shipping bills and renderingthem liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. Thematter was partially remanded to the adjudicating authority for freshdetermination of penalties under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

8.In the meantime, the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter, ‘ED’) alsoinitiated an investigation against the Appellant along with the ongoinginvestigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter, ‘DRI’).

9.The case of the Appellant herein is that it is partnership firm of whichMr. Sajjan Kumar is one of the partners. Mr. Sajjan Kumar, was arrested on25[th]September, 2021 and he subsequently faced various medical issues dueto which his health condition is stated to have deteriorated.

10.The Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/CUS/D-II/ICD/PPG/233-247/19-20

This is 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 20/05/2025 at 14:53:19

dated 28th May, 2019, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) waschallenged by the Appellant before the CESTAT. The said appeal was filedafter the COVID-19 pandemic, only on 29[th]January, 2024. Thus, there wasa substantial delay in the filing of the appeal of more than 1607 days. The saidtimeline is captured in brief hereinbelow:

11.On 10th February, 2025, CESTAT dismissed the appeal filed by theAppellant holding that the Appellant had failed to satisfactorily explain thedelay of 1607 days.

12.The case of the Appellant is that the medical condition of theAppellant’s Director, coupled with the period of COVID-19 pandemic wouldcompletely justify the delay in filing the appeal and thus, sufficient cause hasbeen shown.

13.It is further submitted that, in fact, the Appellant Company’s Partnerwas in custody due to the proceedings before the ED and during such periodhe could not take any steps to avail of legal remedies. This position is refutedby ld. counsel for the Respondent who submits that no medical records havebeen filed prior to 2020 which shows the deteriorating mental health of theAppellant Company’s Partner.

This is digitally signed order.

14.Additionally, it is submitted that the Appellant has availed of more thanRs.5.2 crores in duty drawbacks due to the alleged transactions and the saidamount lies with the Appellant.

15.This Court has considered the matter. The limitation period for filingan appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 is period of threemonths. However, Section 129A(5) also provides that if sufficient cause isshown, the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned.

16.After hearing the above stated submissions made by the parties, thereare three factors which persuade this Court to consider the issue ofcondonation of delay:

i.The investigation by the DRI as also by the ED against theAppellant which commenced in 2019 and culminated into thearrest of the Appellant on 25[th]September, 2021;Appellant which commenced in 2019 and culminated into thearrest of the Appellant on 25[th]September, 2021;

ii.The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic between 2020 to 2022which has also been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Re:CognizanceforextensionofLimitationhavingMisc.Application No. 21 of 2022 in M.A. No. 665 of 2021 in SuoMoto Writ Appeal (C) No. 3 of 2020.which has also been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Re:CognizanceforextensionofLimitationhavingMisc.Application No. 21 of 2022 in M.A. No. 665 of 2021 in SuoMoto Writ Appeal (C) No. 3 of 2020.iii.The medical condition of the Appellant Company’s Partner inrespect of which some records have been placed along with thepresent appeal.respect of which some records have been placed along with thepresent appeal.

17.In view of these facts, this Court is of the opinion that there is sufficientcause shown by the Appellant to justify the delay in filing the appeal.cause shown by the Appellant to justify the delay in filing the appeal.

18.However, the said delay is being condoned, subject to stringent termsand conditions:

i.The Appellant shall deposit sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs as costs to the

This is 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 20/05/2025 at 14:53:19

Delhi High Court Bar Association. The details of the bankaccount are as under;

Name: Delhi High Court Bar Association

Account No.: 15530100000478

IFSC: [REDACTED]

Bank and Branch: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court

ii.A sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs as costs with the Respondent- Department.19.It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments shall be takenbefore CESTAT. The impugned order is set aside on the above terms and theappeal is restored to its original position before CESTAT and shall now beadjudicated on merits. The said amount of Rs. 5 lakhs shall be deposited by10[th]July, 2025.
20.The proof of payment of costs shall be furnished before CESTAT. Acopy of this order shall be communicated to CESTAT.

21.List before CESTAT on 28[th]July, 2025.

22.The appeal is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any,are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

MAY 15, 2025Rahul/ck

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

This is 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 20/05/2025 at 14:53:19