Pulkit Nanda vs Vishal Pal Singh, Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 12^th September, 2025, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 13981/2025.

The order dated 12^th September, 2025, passed by the Division Bench is extracted as below:

Reading of the aforesaid order dated 12^th September, 2025, shows that the following directions had been issued by the Division Bench:

I. Statement of the petitioner was to be duly video recorded by the Customs Department.

II. If required, the statement of petitioner’s father-in law was also directed to be recorded through Video Conferencing (“VC”).

III. After recording the statement of the petitioner and his father-in-law, if required, the Customs Department was required to issue a Show Cause Notice, within the time stipulated under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (“Customs Act”).

IV. Therefore, personal hearing was directed to be afforded to the petitioner, along with an opportunity to file a reply.

V. After considering the reply and oral submissions of the petitioner, the Adjudicating Authority was to pass a reasoned order.

The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that there has been violation of the directions passed by the Division Bench as aforesaid, inasmuch, when the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Customs Authorities, no video recording was done.

In addition, he, submits that he was made to sign a pre-drafted statement by the concerned authorities.

In response, this Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the statement of the petitioner was inadvertently recorded without video recording.

She extends unconditional apology before this Court for the said lapse.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents draws the attention of this Court to the reply/affidavit filed on their behalf, and in particular, paragraph 20 of the said reply/affidavit, which is reproduced as under:

She further submits that with respect to the subject matter of the present contempt petition, the petitioner has also filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 1855/2026, which was listed before the Division Bench of this Court, yesterday, i.e., 04^th August, 2026.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that before the Division Bench, the respondents herein had categorically submitted that the Customs Department was ready to give another opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner herein, for which a notice dated 30^th July, 2026, had also been issued.

She submits that since the petitioner had expressed his unwillingness to appear for another personal hearing, the Division Bench had admitted the matter, and directed it to be listed in due course.

The notice dated 30^th July, 2026, issued by the office of the Commissioner of Customs (Delhi Airport), Indira Gandhi International (“IGI”) Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi-110037, is reproduced as under:

Perusal of the aforesaid notice shows that the petitioner has already been called for a personal hearing on 10^th August, 2026.

On a pointed query by this Court, the petitioner appearing in person, categorically submits that he is ready to attend the personal hearing.

Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall attend the personal hearing on 10^th August, 2026, in terms of the aforesaid notice dated 30^th July, 2026.

This Court records the statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that at the time of personal hearing to be granted to the petitioner on 10^th August, 2026, video recording shall be done in terms of the directions dated 12^th September, 2025, passed by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) 13981/2025.

She further submits that though the Customs Act, as such, does not provide for any video recording, however, since there are directions by this Court, video recording of the personal hearing as afforded to the petitioner, shall be done.

The aforesaid statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents is noted and the respondents are held bound by the same.

Respondents shall ensure that the personal hearing granted to the petitioner on 10^th August, 2026, shall be duly video recorded.

This Court has also perused the aforesaid explanation as given by learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Though the lapse of not video recording the statement is stated to have happened inadvertently, the respondents are cautioned to be careful in future to comply with the directions of this Court scrupulously, as no directions can be taken lightly.

The respondent-Customs Department having a robust law department, is expected to be aware of the directions passed by the Court, and it is no explanation that one of the officers was not aware of the directions of this Court.

The officers of the respondents being government officials, and having their own law department and records, are expected to be in knowledge of the orders passed by the Court.

However, this Court accepts the unconditional apology extended by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who has stated that the respondents shall be careful in future and would not make such lapses.

At this stage, the petitioner has handed over to this Court a Show Cause Notice dated 24^th October, 2025, issued by the respondents. He submits that in the copy that was given to the petitioner, the signatures at the bottom of the last page, i.e., Air Customs Superintendent, Shift-B, are missing.

The said Show Cause Notice dated 24^th October, 2025, is reproduced as under:

This Court notes that the copy of the Show Cause Notice as filed on behalf of the respondents contains the signature at the bottom of the page. The copy as filed by the respondents, is reproduced as under:

This Court notes the statement of learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the said Show Cause Notice was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and his signatures duly appear in the copy as issued to the petitioner.

She submits that the second signatures have been put in the office copy, which is clearly reflected from the document, as filed on behalf of the respondents.

She further submits that the signature of the second officer, i.e., Air Customs Superintendent, Shift-B, as mentioned on the last page of the Show Cause Notice, is only for administrative purpose, to ensure that the copy of the Show Cause Notice is duly dispatched to the concerned officials.

In this regard, it is submitted that the Air Customs Superintendent, Shift-B, has nothing to do with the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, as the same has been issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, whose signatures duly occur in the Show Cause Notice.

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is directed that in case, the petitioner is not satisfied with the aforesaid explanation as given by the respondents, he is at liberty to seek remedies in accordance with law.

However, no orders in this regard can be passed in the present proceedings, on account of the limited jurisdiction of this Court with regard to the contempt proceedings for non-compliance of the order dated 12^th September, 2025, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 13981/2025.

Noting the aforesaid, the present petition is accordingly disposed of, in terms of the directions passed hereinabove.

Pending application is also disposed of.

The next date of 02^nd December, 2026, stands cancelled.