Nancy Trading Company v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD Tughlakabad

What happened

The adjudicating authority passed an order-in-original on 22 December 2021. The appellant filed his appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 16 February 2024, giving 15 December 2023 as the date of communication of the order. The Tribunal asked for proof of service, which was not produced; instead an application for condonation of delay was filed on 4 June 2025, explaining that the appellant's wife was undergoing treatment for cancer and that the counsel before the adjudicating authority had failed to communicate the order.

The Tribunal found the application vague, noting that it said the appellant learned of the order in December 2023 when the department froze the bank accounts. A second application was filed on 23 July 2025 and, on further time being granted, a third application dated 4 September 2025, supported by an affidavit of the counsel who appeared before the adjudicating authority. The affidavit said the order was received by counsel on 22 December 2021. By order dated 13 November 2025 the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of 694 days, and the appellant filed this appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Questions before the court

• Did the Tribunal err in refusing to condone a delay of 694 days where the appellant relied on his wife's cancer treatment and his counsel's failure to communicate the order?

Why the court ruled this way

The Court held that the Tribunal rightly concluded that the appellant knew his counsel was trying to reach him on his mobile phone. The affidavit of counsel was vague: it did not say that calls went unanswered, emphasised that no response was received, and did not state that any attempt was made to send a message. The appellant carried on his trading business during the delay, which the Tribunal took into account.

The Court cited Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 5 SCC 459, on the liberal approach for short delay and stricter approach for inordinate delay; Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash, on the tendency to blame lawyers and the duty of a litigant to be vigilant; and Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Collector (LA), (2024) 12 SCC 336, that condonation cannot be mechanical and must rest on sufficient cause, which cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is writ large. Even assuming the explanation to be true, for two years the appellant did nothing to enquire about the outcome of the proceedings.

Controlling point

The Tribunal's findings on the explanation for the delay disclose no factual or legal error, and no substantial question of law arises for an appeal under section 130.

Order and next steps

The appeal was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of.

Practical implications

An importer who receives or learns of an adverse customs order should instruct counsel in writing to send every order to a stated email or address, track the appeal period from the date of the order, and keep proof of service. A condonation application should be complete from the first filing, with dated evidence for every part of the delay.

Limits of this ruling

• The decision rests on the Tribunal's factual findings about the vagueness of the explanation and the appellant's conduct, and does not lay down a fixed limit on the delay that can be condoned. It does not decide the merits of the underlying order-in-original.