Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs Shri Prahlad Kumar Das

2. The matter pertains to the seizure of 699.310 grams of gold, the approximate value of the same being Rs.27,90,247/-, in the Guwahati Railway Station by the Railway Protection Force Personnel and which was handed over to the Customs Personnel.

¶21

3. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order dated 15.01.2025, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata in Customs Appeal No. 75449/2023, by which the seized gold has been confiscated and a penalty of Rs.2.8 Lakh has been imposed upon the appellant. The learned Appellate Tribunal, in the impugned order dated 15.01.2025, had held that there was no evidence to prove that the gold that had been seized from the respondent were of foreign origin and that it had been smuggling into India. The above decision had been made on the ground that there was no foreign marking/s on the gold and that the purity of gold of 99.30 and 99.39%, for which the gold could not be confiscated, as the condition of Section 110 of the Customs Act had not been complied with. The learned Tribunal thereafter directed that the confiscated gold should be released back to the respondent and the penalty should also be set aside.

¶22

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though there is a Standing Instruction F.No.390/Misc/116/ 2017-JC dated 22.08.2019, which bars the filing of appeals in the High Court by the Customs Department, when the monetary value of the seized goods is not more than Rs. 1 crore, the said policy for filing appeals, cannot cover cases involving smuggling of gold. In support of his submission, the counsel for the appellant submits that the Meghalaya High Court, in the case of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. Daleep Kumar Verma and others (Cus.Appl. No.1/2024), has held that the notification

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

giving the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court would not cover cases relating to smuggling, where orders for confiscation and imposition of find are provided.

¶25

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that as the monetary value of the alleged seized gold being approximately Rs.27,90,247/-, the appellant could not have filed an appeal in this Court, in violation of it’s appeal filing policy. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of cases, the leading case being Cus.Ref.3/2024 (Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. Sahib Jain), which was decided on 19.02.2025.

¶26

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶27

7. As can be seen from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya, cases involving smuggling of gold having a value of less than Rs.1 crore, would not be covered by the notification, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Customs to High Courts for filing appeals in the High Court. However, the Division Bench of this Court in various cases, by taking into consideration the decision of the Allahabad High Court rendered in Customs Appeal No. 1/2022, has held that the challenge made by the Customs Department with regard to alleged smuggling of gold, would not be maintainable, if the monetary involvement was or less than Rs.1 crore. As the present matter relates to alleged smuggling of gold having an approximate value of Rs.27,90,247/-, we are of the view that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Cus.Ref. 3/2024 and others, would have to be applied to the present case, as we are bound by the decision of the

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

Division Bench of this Court and High Court. The appeal being in violation of their own circular/notification, the appeal is not maintainable.

¶30

8. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

¶31

JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Shri Prahlad Kumar Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Shri Prahlad Kumar Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Albish Banda @ Lakra Vs the State of Assam

Pabitra Pasowan Vs the State of Assam

Jiten Ray Vs the State of Assam

Jibon Boro Vs State of Assam

Khireswar Sonowal Vs the State of Assam

Thomas Kisko Alias Hembrom Vs the State of Assam