2025 (6) TMI 1978 - HC - Customs

Collective seizure - Appeals below monetary limit - HELD THAT - It is true that the seizure in these cases was a collective seizure but from the Inventory which was prepared in connection with the said seizure it is clear that 7 bars each were recovered from the 5 intercepted persons namely i) Sri Prasanta Saha ii) Smt. Kamalesh iii) Smt. Paramjeet Kaur iv) Smt. Renu Thapar and v) Smt. Pinki. If the total gold bars seized are apportioned between the five persons named above the total value of the gold seized from each of them as valued by the Revenue is around Rs. 31, 51, 980/- which is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 1 Crore. Further the penalty as imposed upon (i) Shri Sahib Jain and (ii) Shri Anil Kumar Jain being Rs. 10, 00, 000/- each the same is also less than the monetary limit of Rs. 1 Crore. It is not disputed that under the said litigation policy the Union of India has already taken a decision not to press the cases before the High Courts involving monetary limit less than Rs. 1 Crore. The challenge of the Revenue in the present Custom References is not maintainable as per the litigation policy of the Union of India as the amount involved in each of the present cases is less than Rs. 1 Crore. These Custom References are closed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the Custom References filed by the Revenue challenging the CESTAT order are maintainable before the High Court in light of the litigation policy of the Union of India, which restricts Revenue appeals involving monetary implications below Rs. 1 Crore.

- Whether the monetary implication of the seized gold bars, valued collectively at Rs. 1.57 Crore, should be considered as a whole or apportioned among the individual respondents for the purpose of determining maintainability under the litigation policy.

- Whether the CESTAT was justified in setting aside the adjudicating authority's order of confiscation and penalties on the ground that the seized gold bars were not smuggled goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of Revenue Appeals under Litigation Policy

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The litigation policy of the Union of India provides that Revenue shall not press appeals before High Courts where the monetary implication is less than Rs. 1 Crore. This policy aims to rationalize litigation and avoid unnecessary burden on courts and parties.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the monetary value involved in each appeal. Although the total value of the seized gold bars was Rs. 1.57 Crore, the seizure was collective involving multiple respondents. The Court noted that the Inventory prepared at the time of seizure apportioned seven gold bars to each of the five intercepted persons, with the value of gold seized from each individual being approximately Rs. 31,51,980/-.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Inventory annexed by the Revenue clearly indicated individual apportionment of gold bars. Penalties imposed on other respondents were also below Rs. 1 Crore. The Revenue's contention that the total value should be considered collectively was countered by the fact that the Inventory itself apportioned the gold bars among individuals.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the litigation policy, since the value involved in each individual appeal was less than Rs. 1 Crore, the appeals were not maintainable. The Court relied on a precedent from the Allahabad High Court where similar appeals were closed on the ground of monetary limits under the litigation policy.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued for collective valuation to exceed the Rs. 1 Crore threshold, but the Court rejected this, emphasizing the Inventory's apportionment and the policy's clear intent. The respondents' reliance on precedent and the Inventory was accepted.

Conclusion: The Court held that the Revenue's Custom References are not maintainable before the High Court as per the litigation policy since the monetary implication in each appeal is below Rs. 1 Crore.

Issue 2: Validity of CESTAT's Order Setting Aside Confiscation and Penalties

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, deals with confiscation of smuggled goods. The adjudicating authority had ordered absolute confiscation of seized gold bars and imposed penalties on the respondents.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CESTAT set aside the adjudicating authority's order on the ground that the seizure was a town seizure, and the gold bars did not bear any marking of foreign origin. Additionally, the purity of the gold was found to be less than that of foreign origin gold, which led to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 123 were not attracted.

Key Evidence and Findings: The seized gold bars weighed 5837 grams with a collective value of Rs. 1.57 Crore. However, the absence of foreign markings and lower purity undermined the Revenue's claim that the gold was smuggled.

Application of Law to Facts: The CESTAT's reasoning was that without proof of foreign origin or smuggling, the confiscation and penalties could not be sustained under Section 123. The Court did not disturb this finding as the present challenge was dismissed on maintainability grounds.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue challenged the CESTAT's order but did not contest the factual findings regarding purity and marking in detail before the High Court. The primary focus was on maintainability.

Conclusion: The CESTAT's order setting aside confiscation and penalties was upheld implicitly by the High Court's refusal to entertain the Revenue's appeal on maintainability grounds.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"If the total gold bars seized are apportioned between the five persons named above, the total value of the gold seized from each of them, as valued by the Revenue, is around Rs. 31,51,980/-, which is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 1 Crore."

"It is not disputed that under the said litigation policy, the Union of India has already taken a decision not to press the cases before the High Courts involving monetary limit less than Rs. 1 Crore."

"Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the challenge of the Revenue in the present Custom References is not maintainable as per the litigation policy of the Union of India, as the amount involved in each of the present cases is less than Rs. 1 Crore."

Core principles established include the strict adherence to the litigation policy of the Union of India regarding monetary thresholds for Revenue appeals, and the necessity to consider individual apportionment of seized goods for valuation in collective seizures.

Final determinations:

• The Revenue's Custom References challenging the CESTAT order are not maintainable before the High Court due to the monetary implication in each appeal being below Rs. 1 Crore.
• The CESTAT's order setting aside the confiscation and penalties was effectively upheld as the High Court declined to entertain the Revenue's appeal on maintainability grounds.