The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department against a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order, holding that the value involved was below the ₹1 crore monetary limit prescribed for departmental appeals before the High Court.

The seized articles were valued at ₹22,65,909, while the penalty imposed was ₹1,50,000. The bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela has observed that the value involved was much less than the threshold fixed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), and that the appeal could not be entertained.

Buy Now: 80+ Judgements Indirect Tax – September 2026 E-Magazine

The Commissioner of Customs, Preventive, Vijayawada, challenged a final order passed by the CESTAT, Hyderabad Bench, on November 14, 2025.

The respondent/assessee raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the departmental appeal. His counsel argued that the value involved was substantially below the monetary limit prescribed by CBIC for filing an appeal before the High Court.

The department opposed the objection and maintained that its appeal was maintainable.

The High Court’s judgment records the value of the recovered articles and the penalty imposed, but does not set out the underlying facts of the seizure or the detailed reasoning adopted by the tribunal.

The bench examined instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance and CBIC concerning monetary limits for appeals.

The court referred to a clarification dated June 3, 2013, which stated that where redemption fine alone is disputed, further litigation may be pursued if the fine exceeds the prescribed monetary limit. Where both redemption fine and penalty are disputed, their combined amount is to be considered against the limit.

The court also noted an instruction dated January 1, 2016, stating that the instructions on monetary limits apply to pending appeals before High Courts and the CESTAT.

According to the judgment, the monetary limit for departmental appeals before High Courts was initially fixed at ₹15 lakh in December 2015 and revised to ₹20 lakh in December 2016. The court recorded that it was subsequently revised to ₹1 crore under the instruction dated November 2, 2023.

The bench referred to Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with the option of paying a fine in lieu of confiscation of goods.

The court observed that gold is not prohibited goods under the Customs Act and that the redemption fine cannot exceed the market price of the goods. Taking the value of the goods at the time of seizure into consideration, the bench found that the amount involved fell below the prescribed threshold.

The High Court referred to the Kerala High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Cochin v. T.V. Abdul Khader, which considered the monetary limit in a case involving confiscated gold. The Kerala High Court had observed that the circulars fixing monetary limits were intended to reduce government litigation.

The bench also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Harish Chander and the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Customs v. Disha Tulsiani.

It further referred to the Supreme Court’s order in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. T.V. Abdul Khader, which agreed with the Kerala High Court’s view. As quoted in the judgment, the Supreme Court observed that the amount of redemption, fine and penalty taken together was below the ₹1 crore threshold fixed by CBIC.

Applying the CBIC instructions and the decisions cited, the Andhra Pradesh High Court concluded that the value involved in the present case was much less than the prescribed limit. It accordingly dismissed the department’s appeal.

The court made no order as to costs and closed the pending miscellaneous petitions. Its decision was based on the monetary-limit objection; the judgment does not decide the underlying customs dispute on its merits.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Madras High Court Stays GST Rectification Order Challenged As Time-Barred