2025 (2) TMI 887 - HC - Customs

Revenue's Appeal Dismissed: Court Upholds Tribunal's Order for Provisional Release of Seized Gold Bars Under Section 130.

Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata Versus M/s. J.S. Jewels Private Limited

Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata Versus M/s. J.S. Jewels Private Limited - TMI The Calcutta High Court considered an appeal filed by the revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, against an order passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal. The revenue raised several substantial questions of law for consideration, including issues related to the ownership and provenance of seized gold bars, the application of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, and the sufficiency of evidence presented by the respondent to establish ownership and compliance with customs regulations.The Court noted that a previous appeal had been filed challenging an order directing the provisional release of the seized gold bars. In that appeal, the Court had remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for further consideration, as it was found that certain aspects of the case had not been adequately addressed. Upon remand, the Tribunal reviewed the challans submitted by the respondent and found that they appeared genuine, with serial numbers matching and signatures tallying. The Tribunal also verified the markings on the gold bars and found a correlation between the bars purchased by the respondent and those seized by customs officers.Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent had prima facie established ownership of the gold bars and their lawful acquisition. The Tribunal ordered the provisional release of the seized goods, subject to certain conditions to safeguard the revenue's interests. This included the requirement for the respondent to provide a bond for the full value of the seized gold bars supported by a bank guarantee.The Court, upon reviewing the Tribunal's decision, found that the Tribunal had appropriately considered the evidence and made a reasoned decision based on the facts presented. The Court concluded that no substantial questions of law arose from the Tribunal's decision and, therefore, dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Court ordered the provisional release of the seized gold bars to the respondent within three weeks, in accordance with the conditions set by the Tribunal.In summary, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to provisionally release the seized gold bars to the respondent based on the evidence presented and the findings of correlation between the purchased gold bars and the seized goods. The Court found no legal errors in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the revenue's appeal, allowing for the release of the gold bars subject to specified conditions.