ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 01.04.2026
Calcutta High Court Directs Revenue to Approach Supreme Court Under Section 130E of Customs Act
This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.
On March 19, 2026, the High Court at Calcutta, under its Special Jurisdiction (Customs), delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port) vs. M/s Akash Exports, Through Its Proprietor. β The case, registered as CUSTA/26/2026 and IA NO: GA/1/2026, was heard by a division bench comprising Honβble Justice.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port) against M/s Akash Exports, alleging substantial errors in law committed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). β The appellant raised several critical questions of law under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, which governs appeals to the High Court. β The case revolved around issues of provisional release, smuggling allegations, valuation of imported goods, and penalties under the Customs Act. β
Substantial Questions of Law Raised β
The appellant, represented by Senior Advocate, presented the following key questions of law for the Court’s consideration:
- Misinterpretation of Provisional Release: Whether the Tribunal erred in interpreting provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, as provisional assessment under Section 18. β
- Disregard of Evidence: Whether the Tribunal committed a substantial error in law by disregarding overwhelming evidence of smuggling and fraud, treating the case as a mere procedural issue. β
- Valuation of Goods: Whether the Tribunal incorrectly rejected the re-determined value of goods by the department and accepted the declared/revised values, violating Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. β
- Penalty Under Section 114AA: Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the penalty under Section 114AA by treating it as consequential to the duty demand without appreciating the true scope of the section. β
- Perversity of the Tribunal’s Order: Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was perverse in both facts and law. β
Legal Framework
The Court examined the provisions of Sections 130 and 130E of the Customs Act, 1962, which outline the procedures for appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court, respectively. β Section 130 allows appeals to the High Court if the case involves substantial questions of law, while Section 130E provides for appeals to the Supreme Court in cases involving the determination of the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes.
Court’s Observations
After reviewing the case and the legal provisions, the Court concluded that the appeal should be preferred before the Honβble Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act. β The bench noted that the case involved substantial questions of law and related to the determination of the value of goods for assessment purposes, which falls under the purview of the Supreme Court. β
Judgment
The High Court dismissed the appeals and connected applications filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port). β The Court also granted leave to the appellant’s advocate to obtain a certified copy of the tribunal’s order and replace it with a photocopy. β
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment underscores the importance of correctly interpreting the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 130 and 130E, in determining the appropriate forum for appeals. β By directing the matter to the Supreme Court, the High Court has reinforced the principle that cases involving substantial questions of law related to the valuation of goods for assessment purposes must be adjudicated at the highest judicial level. β
Conclusion
The case of Commissioner of Customs (Port) vs. M/s Akash Exports highlights the complexities of customs law and the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases involving allegations of smuggling, fraud, and valuation disputes. β The High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeals and direct the matter to the Supreme Court sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring that substantial questions of law are addressed by the appropriate judicial authority. β
Source: Calcutta High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379