1 OD – 11 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Customs] ORIGINAL SIDE CUSTA/50/2026 IA NO: GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PORT KOLKATA VS M/S DEEPAK JINDAL BEFORE : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date : 23rd July, 2026 Appearance : Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv. Mr. K.K. Maiti, Adv. ..for appellant. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Bagaria, Adv. ..for respondent. The Court : Heard learned counsel appearing for either of the parties. There is a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The application being GA/1/2026 is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the monetary effect in this case is Rs.24,54,657/- which is below the limit as prescribed in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs’ instruction under F. No.390/Misc./30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023 but the case falls within the exceptional category under para 2 as per Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs’ instruction dated 02.11.2023. We have perused the application. We do not find any reason to entertain this appeal where the appellant has not clearly suggested which exceptional clause as read 2

in para 2 as per Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs’ instruction dated 02.11.2023 is applicable in the present appeal. As such, this appeal and the connected application being GA/2/2026 are dismissed as the monetary effect in this matter is below Rs. 1 crore. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) sd/

1 OD – 11 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Customs] ORIGINAL SIDE CUSTA/50/2026 IA NO: GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PORT KOLKATA VS M/S DEEPAK JINDAL BEFORE : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date : 23rd July, 2026 Appearance : Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv. Mr. K.K. Maiti, Adv. ..for appellant. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Bagaria, Adv. ..for respondent. The Court : Heard learned counsel appearing for either of the parties. There is a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The application being GA/1/2026 is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the monetary effect in this case is Rs.24,54,657/- which is below the limit as prescribed in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs’ instruction under F. No.390/Misc./30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023 but the case falls within the exceptional category under para 2 as per Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs’ instruction dated 02.11.2023. We have perused the application. We do not find any reason to entertain this appeal where the appellant has not clearly suggested which exceptional clause as read 2

in para 2 as per Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs’ instruction dated 02.11.2023 is applicable in the present appeal. As such, this appeal and the connected application being GA/2/2026 are dismissed as the monetary effect in this matter is below Rs. 1 crore. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) sd/