Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs Prahlad Kumar Das (Gauhati High Court)
The Gauhati High Court heard an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) against the respondent, Prahlad Kumar Das, concerning the seizure of 699.310 grams of gold valued at approximately ₹27,90,247/-. The gold was seized at the Guwahati Railway Station by the Railway Protection Force and subsequently handed over to Customs.
The appeal challenged an order dated January 15, 2025, issued by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata. In its order, CESTAT had initially confiscated the gold and imposed a penalty of ₹2.8 Lakh on the respondent. However, the Tribunal later determined there was no evidence to prove that the seized gold was of foreign origin or had been smuggled into India, citing the absence of foreign markings and the gold’s purity (99.30 and 99.39%). Based on this finding, the Tribunal concluded that the condition of Section 110 of the Customs Act had not been complied with, and therefore, directed that the confiscated gold be released back to the respondent and the penalty be set aside.
The learned counsel for the appellant Customs Department argued that despite the Standing Instruction dated August 22, 2019, which bars the Customs Department from filing appeals in the High Court when the monetary value of seized goods is not more than ₹1 crore, this policy should not cover cases involving the smuggling of gold. To support this, the appellant cited a judgment by the Meghalaya High Court, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. Daleep Kumar Verma and others, which purportedly held that the monetary limit notification would not apply to cases related to smuggling.
