Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Shri Prahlad Kumar Das on 13 October, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010111432025
2025:GAU-
AS:13605-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cus.Ref./2/2025
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)
NORTH EASTERN REGION, SHILLONG 110, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
SHILLONG 793001, MEGHALAYA.
VERSUS
SHRI PRAHLAD KUMAR DAS
KUMARGOLI, CHINSURAH, P.O. AND P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGLY,
WEST BENGAL 712101
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C KEYAL, KAUSHIK JAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R D GUPTA, MS S S ZIA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
13.10.2025
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. S. Zia,
learned counsel for the respondent.
Page No.# 2/4
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.
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.
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
Page No.# 3/4
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.
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.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
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
Page No.# 4/4
Division Bench of this Court and High Court. The appeal being in violation of
their own circular/notification, the appeal is not maintainable.
8. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
