Just a moment...

โœ•
Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
โ•ณ
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
โœ•
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article โœ•
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

๐Ÿ๐Ÿ‘ ๐ฒ๐ž๐š๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ซ๐ž-๐๐ž๐œ๐ข๐๐ž ๐š ๐œ๐š๐ฌ๐ž

Unnathi Partners Private Ltd
Gold Ornaments Seizure Case Dismissed After 15-Year Customs Delay Without Explanation or Chemical Testing The CESTAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the appellant in a case involving gold ornaments seized in November 2003. After initial adjudication in October 2005 and an appeal order in May 2006, CESTAT remanded the matter, but Customs took 15 years to act without explanation. The Tribunal determined this excessive delay, coupled with lack of valid reason, constituted an invalid order. Revenue failed to prove smuggling allegations and conducted no chemical testing of the seized goods. The case highlighted significant procedural delays, as customs regulations require appeals to be decided within 6 months, raising concerns about justice administration and ease of doing business. (AI Summary)

๐Ÿ๐Ÿ‘ ๐ฒ๐ž๐š๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ซ๐ž-๐๐ž๐œ๐ข๐๐ž ๐š ๐œ๐š๐ฌ๐ž?

๐Ÿ˜ณ How long is too long for justice? โณ

Yes, you read that right.

๐Ÿ“Œ M/s Shri Biplab Karmakar vs Commr. of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata

๐Ÿ“š [2025 (3) TMI 133 - CESTAT KOLKATA]

Hereโ€™s the shocking timeline ๐Ÿ”

๐Ÿ“… Gold ornaments seized in ๐๐จ๐ฏ ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ
๐Ÿ“‘ Adjudication order passed in ๐Ž๐œ๐ญ ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ‘
๐Ÿ“จ Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order in ๐Œ๐š๐ฒ ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ’
โš–๏ธ CESTAT remanded the matter in ๐Ž๐œ๐ญ ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ’

Thenโ€ฆ

๐Ÿšซ Customs took ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ‘ ๐Ÿ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฒ๐ž๐š๐ซ๐ฌ to act on the remand!

โธ๏ธ No action. No explanation.

Fast forward to recent years:

๐Ÿ—‚๏ธ Appeal refiled in ๐’๐ž๐ฉ๐ญ ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ–
๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Personal hearing in ๐€๐ฎ๐  ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ
๐Ÿ“ƒ Final order passed in ๐’๐ž๐ฉ๐ญ ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ

Again โ€” โŒ no reason given for the delay.

But the law is clear:

๐Ÿ“– As per Section ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ–๐€(๐Ÿ’๐€) of the Customs Act & Customs Manual,
๐Ÿ•’ Appeal must be decided within ๐Ÿ” ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐ฌ

๐Ÿง‘โ€โš–๏ธ CESTAT clearly held: ๐ƒ๐ž๐ฅ๐š๐ฒ + ๐๐จ ๐ฏ๐š๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐š๐ฌ๐จ๐ง = ๐ˆ๐ง๐ฏ๐š๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ž๐ซ

Key observations:
๐Ÿ”น Revenue failed to prove smuggling
๐Ÿ”ฌ No chemical test done

๐Ž๐ซ๐๐ž๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐œ๐ค ๐๐จ๐ฐ๐ง.๐€๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ž๐š๐ฅ ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐ž๐.

Now the big question ๐Ÿง

If this is the pace of justice,

๐Ÿ“‰ What happens to Ease of Doing Business?

๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ And what about Viksit Bharat?

Are they just slogans?

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles