Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010023532024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cus.Ref./3/2024 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) NORTH EASTERN REGION SHILLONG 110, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD SHILLONG-793001, MEGHALAYA. VERSUS SAHIB JAIN S/O ANIL KUMAR JAIN, M/S. TANSUKHRAI RATANLAL JEWELLERS, SHOPPER'S POINT, J.N. ROAD, CHAIGAI, FANCY BAZAR, GUWAHATI. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C KEYAL, Advocate for the Respondent : MS S S ZIA, MR B KAUSHIK,PIYUSH KUMAR,MR. S HAZARIKA Linked Case : Cus.Ref./6/2024 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) NORTH EASTERN REGION SHILLONG 110 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD SHILLONG-793001 MEGHALAYA. VERSUS SMT. RENU THAPAR WIFE OF LATE RAJENDER THAPAR N-59 GURUDWARA ROAD MOHAN GARDEN URRAM NAGAR K.K. MOHAN GARDEN WEST DELHI DELHI-110059. Page No.# 2/7 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S C KEYAL Advocate for : MR. S HAZARIKA appearing for SMT. RENU THAPAR Linked Case : Cus.Ref./4/2024 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) NORTH EASTERN REGION SHILLONG 110 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD SHILLONG-783001 MEGHALAYA. VERSUS SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE RATANLAL JAIN PROPRIETOR OF M/S. TANSKHRAI RATANLAL JEWELLERS SHOPPER'S POINT J.N. ROAD CHAIGALI FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI. ------------ Advocate for : MR. S C KEYAL Advocate for : MS S S ZIA appearing for SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN Linked Case : Cus.Ref./7/2024 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) NORTH EASTERN REGION SHILLONG 110 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD SHILLONG-793001 MEGHALAYA. VERSUS SMT. KAMALESH WIFE OF SRI OM PRAKASH RZ-255 GALI NO. 9 VISHNU GARDEN EXTN. WEST DELHI-110018. Page No.# 3/7 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S C KEYAL Advocate for : PIYUSH KUMAR appearing for SMT. KAMALESH Linked Case : Cus.Ref./5/2024 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) NORTH EASTERN REGION SHILLONG 110 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD SHILLONG-793001 MEGHALAYA VERSUS SRI PRASANTA SAHA S/O MANIK SAHA 16/1/1/H6 BIPLAB BARIN GHOSH SARANI KOLKATA-67. ------------ Advocate for : MR. S C KEYAL Advocate for : MS S S ZIA appearing for SRI PRASANTA SAHA Linked Case : Cus.Ref./9/2024 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) NORTH EASTERN REGION SHILLONG 110 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD SHILLONG-793001 MEGHALAYA VERSUS SMTI. PINKI W/O OM PRAKASH K-75 1ST. FLOOR SHYAM NAGAR TILAK NAGAR WEST DELHI DELHI-18 Page No.# 4/7 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S C KEYAL Advocate for : appearing for SMTI. PINKI Linked Case : Cus.Ref./10/2024 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) NORTH EASTERN REGION SHILLONG 110 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD SHILLONG-793001 MEGHALAYA. VERSUS SMT. PARAMJEET KAUR W/O MOHINDER PAL SINGH 54/94 OLD MAHAVIR NAGAR JANAK PURI METRO STATION TILAK NAGAR DELHI-18. For the appellant : Mr. S.C. Keyal, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. P. Kumar, Mr. B. Kaushik, Advocates. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 19-02-2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.) These Custom References have been preferred by the appellant Revenue being aggrieved with the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CESTAT’), Kolkata, in Customs Appeal No.76189 of 2016, whereby the CESTAT, while disposing of the said appeal along with six other appeals preferred on behalf of the Page No.# 5/7 respondents herein, set aside the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the adjudicating authority. 2. By order dated 16.03.2016, the adjudicating authority ordered for absolute confiscation of the seized 35 pieces gold bars, collectively weighing 5837 gms, and collectively valued at Rs.1,57,59,900/-. It was also ordered for absolute confiscation of the torn pieces of clothes and adhesive tapes seized with the gold bars, and imposed penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- on Sri Prasanta Saha and Rs.3,00,000/- each on Smt. Pinki, Smt. Kamalesh, Smt Paramjeet Kaur and Smt Renu Thapar (who are the respondents in the present Custom References). The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of Rs.20,00,000/- on Shri Shyam Sunder Heera, who is now stated to be expired. Further, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- each upon (i) Shri Sahib Jain and (ii) Shri Anil Kumar Jain (respondents in the present Custom References). The CESTAT set aside the said order of the adjudicating authority on the ground that it was a case of town seizure and the gold bars in question were not bearing any marking of foreign origin. It was also observed by the CESTAT that the purity of the gold was less than the purity of foreign origin gold and therefore provision of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not attracted to come to a conclusion that the 3327.40 gms of gold, which was seized and confiscated, was smuggled one. 3. The Revenue has challenged the order of the CESTAT on several grounds. However, at the time of initial hearing, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the present appeals are not maintainable in view of the litigation policy of the Union of India, which clearly provides that the Revenue shall not press any revenue appeal in High Courts wherein monetary implication does not exceed the limit of Rs.1 Crore. Considering the said objection, this Court, vide order dated 16.12.2024, granted time to the counsel for the Revenue to satisfy this Court that the monetary implication in each Page No.# 6/7 of these appeals exceeds the limit of Rs.1 Crore. 4. Pursuant to that, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Revenue wherein it is sated that since the seizure of the gold bars made by the Investigating Officer weighed 5837 gms, valued at Rs.1,57,59,900/-, the Custom References filed by the department do not fall under the said litigation policy and, therefore, the Custom References are required to be decided on their own merits. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue has argued that since the value of the seized gold is more than Rs.1.5 Crore, the Custom References preferred by the Revenue do not fall under the litigation policy. It is also contended that since the seizure of the gold bars was a collective one and not separately from each individual, the weight and value of the seized gold bars cannot be considered separately and therefore it cannot be said that the monetary implication in each of the appeal is less than Rs.1 Crore. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the Revenue and has argued that copy of Inventory, in respect of the goods seized on the day of the incident at Guwahati, has been annexed with the affidavit filed on behalf of the Revenue pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 12.12.2024 and in the said inventory at Sl No.1, there is a specific remark to the effect that 7 bars each were recovered from 5 intercepted persons. It is contended that since the Revenue itself has apportioned the seized gold bars amongst the respondents herein and the gold bars seized from each of the respondents has been valued at around Rs.31,51,980/-, it is clear that in all these cases, the amount involved is less than Rs.1 Crore. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court, rendered in Custom Appeal No.1/2020 along with other connected appeals, and has submitted that in a similar situation, the Allahabad High Court rejected the objection of the Revenue and closed the appeals while Page No.# 7/7 observing that the same are below the monetary limit. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 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/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) 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. 8. 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. Accordingly, these Custom References are closed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant