Gold Worth Rs. 38 Lakh Held Despite CESTAT’s Order: Calcutta HC Slams Delay, Directs Customs to Comply in 15 Days

Gold Worth Rs. 38 Lakh Held Despite CESTAT’s Order: Calcutta HC Slams Delay, Directs Customs to Comply in 15 Days

The Calcutta High Court has pulled up customs authorities for delaying the release of gold ornaments worth Rs. 38.13 lakh, despite a clear order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) holding that the confiscation was unlawful.

The bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury noted that the writ petition seeking enforcement of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)’s order, which overturned a confiscation of the gold under Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal had categorically held that the gold was not liable for confiscation and directed its return.

The gold, weighing 1218.690 grams, had been seized under Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the CESTAT, in its December 11, 2024 ruling, categorically held that the goods were not liable for confiscation and ordered their release.

During the proceedings, petitioner submitted that per the instructions of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), no appeal is permissible if the value of goods involved is less than Rs. 1 crore. In this case, the gold’s value stood at Rs. 38.13 lakh, making the Tribunal’s decision final and binding.

Appearing for the customs authorities, counsel confirmed that the process for releasing the seized gold was underway. Noting this submission, Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held that no purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending.

The Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the customs department to act on the Tribunal’s order and complete the release process within 15 days from the receipt of the High Court’s order.

Additionally, the Court took note of the petitioner’s entitlement to a refund of the pre-deposit amount made for the appeal, in line with the Tribunal’s ruling, and held that no separate order was needed for the same.

Case Details

Case Title: Sri Prasanta Sarkar Versus Union Of India & Ors.

Case No.: WPO/210/2025 

Date:  19th June, 2025

Counsel For Petitioner: Nilotpal Chowdhury 

Counsel For Respondent: Uday Shankar Bhattacharya

Read More: Deposit Made ‘Under Protest’ Can’t Be Treated as Admission: Himachal HC Quashes Rs. 2.4 Cr GST Demand 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here