Allahabad High Court
MOAZZEM ALIversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
An appeal under the Customs Act may be filed and registered without the pre‑deposit, and may be treated as a defective proceeding pending proof of deposit.
Summary
The petitioner, Moazzem Ali, filed a writ petition seeking to appeal an adjudication order passed under the Customs Act, 1962, and also requested that the revenue authority decide his waiver application pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court noted that a similar matter, Runway Impex & Anr. v. Union of India, had been decided, allowing the filing of an appeal without the mandatory pre‑deposit of 7.5% of the disputed customs duty/penalty. The Court held that the appeal could be filed, numbered and registered even if the pre‑deposit was not made, treating the proceeding as defective for that reason. The issue of whether the appeal should be entertained will be decided later by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a quasi‑judicial capacity. Accordingly, the present writ petition was disposed of on the same terms as the earlier case.
Issues considered
- Whether a pre‑deposit of 7.5% of the disputed customs duty/penalty is required before filing an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Customs Act
- pre‑deposit
- appeal filing
- waiver application
- writ petition
- defective proceeding
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 2565 of 2026
Moazzem Ali
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akanksha Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi,
Sudarshan Singh
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Ms. Akanksha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the revenue.
2. Present writ petition raises a common legal issue. Visited with
Adjudication Order (Order-in-Original), passed under the provisions of the
Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner intend
to file appeal, thereagainst. He also seeks direction upon respondent no. 2 to
decide the petitioner's waiver application filed alongwith his appeal
(Moazzem Ali, M/s Aurangabad General Trading Vs. Joint Commissioner,
Customs Commissionerate, Noida) pending before respondent no.2 against
the Order-in-Original No. 51/JC/NOIDA-CUS/2025-26 dated 28.11.2025.
3. In identical facts, M/s Runway Impex & Anr. Vs. Union of India & 2
Ors.; 2026:AHC:95732-DB has been disposed of vide order dated
28.04.2026 on the following terms:
"23. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of with the direction
that the proceeding being presented by the petitioner before the
Commissioner (Appeals), against the Order-in-Original dated
28.11.2025, must be allowed to be filed, numbered and thus registered,
without insisting on pre-deposit at the rate of 7.5% of the disputed
demand of customs duty/penalty, at that stage. Such proceeding may be
registered as a defective proceeding-for reason of pre-deposit not made
or proof of pre-deposit not produced, at that stage. The issue, whether
WTAX No. 2565 of 2026
2
that appeal is to be 'entertained', may be considered by the Commissioner
(Appeals), on the quasi-judicial side, where that proceeding is
listed/placed before it, first."
4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same
terms.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
May 18, 2026
Bhanu
Digitally signed by :-
BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…