“Gross Concealment”: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On Party In Poppy Seeds Smuggling Case
The Delhi High Court recently imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh on the power of attorney holder of a company, purportedly involved in smuggling of prohibited items like poppy seeds.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the Petitioner had failed to disclose that his challenge to the penalty order passed by the Customs authority was previously dismissed by...
The Delhi High Court recently imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh on the power of attorney holder of a company, purportedly involved in smuggling of prohibited items like poppy seeds.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the Petitioner had failed to disclose that his challenge to the penalty order passed by the Customs authority was previously dismissed by the Court.
“The Counsel for the Petitioner had a duty to disclose the relevant facts and the relevant proceedings in this petition, which unfortunately has not been done,” it added.
Briefly put, the Petitioner is the power of attorney holder of one M/s. Meadows International Co., which exported 'ammonium sulphate' consignments to India. Suspecting misdeclaration and concealment, the consignments were inspected by the Customs Department, which revealed that the same were consisting of 'poppy seeds' and 'areca nuts'.
As such, goods were absolutely confiscated and a penalty was imposed to the tune of ₹12 crores on the Petitioner and Authorized Representative of the consignor, along with a penalty of ₹4 lacs on the Petitioner.
Petitioner argued that he is only a Power of Attorney Holder and at best an agent, penalty cannot be imposed upon him.
The High Court noted that there are very serious allegations in this matter and the Petitioner, despite repeated summons, did not cooperate with the Customs Department, and also did not file any reply, despite notices being issued to him.
It also slammed the Petitioner for “gross concealment” of previous litigations concerning the transaction.
The Petitioner also claimed that it was under the Counsel's instructions that he had signed the documents related to M/s. Meadows International Co as well. The Court however said,
“There is clearly more than what meets the eye. In such cases, writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000/-, to be deposited by the Petitioner with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within four weeks of this order.”
Appearance: Ms. Priyadarshi Manish, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms. Suhani Mathur and Mr. Jatin Gaur, Advs. for Respondent
Case title: Manish Sharma v. Additional Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1542
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17242/2025