Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata Versus J.S. Jewels Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 33 Centax 356 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- T.S. Sivagnanam, CJ. & Chaitali Chatterjee (DAS), J.
- S/Shri Uday Shankar Bhattacharyya & Tapan Bhanja, Advs. for the Appellant
- S/Shri Mainak Bose, Neeraj Kumar Pandey & Shakeel Mohammed Akhter, Advs. for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CESTAT order directing provisional release of 4 kgs of gold seized from the assessee. The Tribunal had examined the documents produced by the assessee, including serially numbered challans, gate passes and packing lists, which tallied with the markings on the seized gold. It concluded that there was a prima facie correlation between the seized gold and the 4 kgs of gold purchased by the assessee from HDFC Bank Ltd. and accordingly ordered provisional release of the gold on the condition of execution of bond for full value of the seized gold and a bank guarantee for 25% of the value.
High Court held
The Calcutta High Court held that the Tribunal had undertaken a factual exercise and reached a prima facie conclusion justifying provisional release subject to adequate safeguards. Since no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arose for consideration under Section 130 of the Customs Act, the appeal was dismissed. The seized gold was directed to be provisionally released to the assessee upon compliance with the Tribunal’s directions.
List of Cases Reviewed
- JS Jewels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 33 Centax 355 (Tri. – Kol.) — Affirmed [Para 1]
