OD-7 to 12 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [CUSTOMS] ORIGINAL SIDE CUSTA/90/2025 IA NO: GA/3/2026 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE KOLKATA VS M/S NEELKANTH MAHADEVE INTERNATINAL CUSTA/91/2025 IA NO:GA/3/2026 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE KOLKATA VS SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL PARTNER CUSTA/92/2025 IA NO:GA/3/2026 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE KOLKATA VS SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL CUSTA/94/2025 IA NO:GA/3/2026 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE KOLKATA VS M/S NEELKANTH MAHADEV CUSTA/95/2025 IA NO:GA/3/2026 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE KOLKATA VS SHRI ANIL PAHARIYA PARTNER CUSTA/96/2025 IA NO:GA/3/2026 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE KOLKATA VS SHRI ANIL PAHARIA PARTNER BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date:3rd July, 2026. 2 Appearance: Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Kaustav Kanti Maiti, Adv. …for the appellant Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sharma, Adv. Ms. S. Jain, Adv. …for the respondent. The Court: The paper books submitted by the appellant are retained as part of the record. Learned counsel representing the respondent/assessee raises a preliminary objection concerning the maintainability of these appeals, filed via GA/3/2026, notwithstanding the fact that the matters were admitted by this Court on 19th February, 2026. The appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law for consideration: I. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in law and fact in not considering the notification No.99/2011-Cus dated 09.11.2011, which is binding upon the Customs, which stipulates regarding claiming exemption of duty the importer have to prove that the goods, in respect of which the benefit SAFTA exemption is claimed, are of the origin of the country named mentioned above in accordance with SAFTA and the present COO SAFTA certificates of the Respondent are incomplete and deficient and not legal as per the above notification and hence the said certificate does not possess the legality to claim exemption from 3 the Customs and as such the findings of the Learned Tribunal cannot be sustained in law? II. When the onus to claim preferential treatment under SAFTA agreement for Refined Palm Olein is subject to fulfilling the criteria of minimum of DVA of 30% in addition to the condition, that none of the non-originating inputs from which it is manufactured should fall under the same CTSH, and by non-mentioning the value of the non- originating materials expressed as a percentage of the FOB, the issuing authority, Bangladesh did not comply with Article 8 read with Article 21(II)(b) of Operational Certificate Procedure for SAFTA Rules of Origin and hence the COO SAFTA certificate is invalid, non- enforceable in law and not entitled to claim exemption from payment of duty, and as such the order of the Learned Tribunal cannot be sustained? III. III. Whether the Learned Tribunal have committed manifest error in law and fact, an error apparent on the face of the records and also against the principles of natural justice, since the Learned Tribunal had taken into consideration additional documents from the Respondents to sustain the validity of the COO SAFTA certificate by substituting its own views, when the additional documents have been privately issued, not part of the adjudication process and have not been authenticated by the recognized authority under the SAFTA agreement, and the inclusion of additional documents to sustain the 4 legality of the COO SAFTA certificate is not recognized in law and not in terms of the notification NO.99/2011-Cus dated 09.11.2011 and as such the findings of the Learned Tribunal is not sustainable in law?" Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submits that the appellant/department has preferred the instant appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the final order No.76220-76226/2025 dated 08.05.2025, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Customs Appeal No.75122 of 2021. The respondent/assessee has raised a preliminary ground of non-maintainability of the present appeals, contending that the amount of duty in dispute is Rs.53,92,169/-. This objection is raised notwithstanding the prior admission of the matters and the framing of substantial questions of law for hearing. According to the CBIC National Litigation Policy, Instruction F.No.390/Misc./30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023 unequivocally directs that the department shall not file an appeal before the High Court where the duty involved is below the sum of Rs.1 crore. In the present appeal, the duty involved is Rs.53,92,169/-, which is in direct contravention of this binding instruction. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the monetary limit fixed by the Board cannot be applied in the peculiar facts of this case, where the legality and authenticity of the COO SAFTA certificate are not in accordance with law. Consequently, it is argued that the payment of duty by 5 the importer based on an invalid certificate cannot be permitted under the facts of this case. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Even though the matters have been admitted and substantial questions of law have been framed, the issue raised by the respondent/assessee was not addressed at the time of admission. Upon hearing the matter, we find no reason to entertain these appeals, as the appellant has failed to clearly demonstrate which exceptional clause, as referenced in paragraph 2 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs' instruction dated 02.11.2023, is applicable to the present appeals. Accordingly, the appeals and the connected application [GA/3/2026] are dismissed, as the tax effect in these matters is below Rs.1 crore. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) sd/