OD 98 ORDER SHEET CUSTA/98/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024, GA/2/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA VS ADITYA SARADA BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date: 30th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ekta Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anindya Kanan, Adv. Mr. Dhirodatto Chaudhuri, Adv. …for the appellant Mr. Sudhir Mehta, Adv. Ms. Riya Debnath, Adv. …for the respondent The Court: We have heard learned advocates on either side. There is a delay of 26 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 of 2024 is allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant suggests the following substantial questions of law by filing the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2 “i. Whether or not the respondent is liable to pay Anti-Dumping duty in respect of seven Bills of Entry ? ii. Whether or not the value declared in 26 Bills of Entry are liable to be rejected and redetermined on the basis of prices of similar goods ? iii. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in law and on facts by passing the impugned order dated 9th May, 2024 by observing that the order in original dated 18-08-2023 is not sustainable for violation of conditions stipulated in Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 ?

iv. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in setting aside the penalty imposed on all four respondents ? v. Whether the Ld. Tribunal has erred in observing that differential ADD confirmed in respect of the 5 Bills of Entry in the impugned order is not sustainable as there is no evidence available to substantiate the allegation and also erred in observing that the differential ADD in respect of the 2 Bills of Entry in the impugned order is not sustainable on the ground of Limitation ? vi. Whether the Ld. Tribunal is justified in setting aside the impugned order confirming the demand of differential Custom duty on account of undervaluation is not sustainable. vii. Whether the impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal is erroneous, perverse, and without considering the true facts relevant to the matter ?” 3 Section 130 of the Customs Act 1962 speaks of appeal to High Court which is quoted below:- “130. Appeal to High Court. – (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

(2) The [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] or the other party aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be – (a) filed within one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] or the other party; (b) accompanied by a fee of two hundred rupees where such appeal is filed by the other party; (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. [(2A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days referred to in clause (a) of 4 sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within that period.]” The Customs Act, 1962 also speaks of appeal to Supreme Court which is quoted below:- “130E. Appeal to Supreme Court. – An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from – [(a) any judgment of the High Court delivered – (i) in an appeal made under section 130; or (ii) on a reference made under section 130 by the Appellate Tribunal before the 1st day of July, 2003;

(iii) on a reference made under section 130A, in any case which, on its own motion or on an oral application made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after passing of the judgment, the High Court certifies to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court; or] (b) any order passed [before the establishment of the National Tax Tribunal] by the Appellate Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. [(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty shall include the determination of taxability or excisability of goods for the purpose of assessment.]” On perusal of Sections 130 and 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 in our opinion, this appeal should be preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Act. 5 The appeal and the connected application preferred by the department are dismissed. Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record of the appellant to receive certified copy of the tribunal from the department and replace it with a photocopy of the same. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) B.Pal

OD 98 ORDER SHEET CUSTA/98/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024, GA/2/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA VS ADITYA SARADA BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date: 30th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ekta Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anindya Kanan, Adv. Mr. Dhirodatto Chaudhuri, Adv. …for the appellant Mr. Sudhir Mehta, Adv. Ms. Riya Debnath, Adv. …for the respondent The Court: We have heard learned advocates on either side. There is a delay of 26 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 of 2024 is allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant suggests the following substantial questions of law by filing the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2 “i. Whether or not the respondent is liable to pay Anti-Dumping duty in respect of seven Bills of Entry ? ii. Whether or not the value declared in 26 Bills of Entry are liable to be rejected and redetermined on the basis of prices of similar goods ? iii. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in law and on facts by passing the impugned order dated 9th May, 2024 by observing that the order in original dated 18-08-2023 is not sustainable for violation of conditions stipulated in Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 ?

iv. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in setting aside the penalty imposed on all four respondents ? v. Whether the Ld. Tribunal has erred in observing that differential ADD confirmed in respect of the 5 Bills of Entry in the impugned order is not sustainable as there is no evidence available to substantiate the allegation and also erred in observing that the differential ADD in respect of the 2 Bills of Entry in the impugned order is not sustainable on the ground of Limitation ? vi. Whether the Ld. Tribunal is justified in setting aside the impugned order confirming the demand of differential Custom duty on account of undervaluation is not sustainable. vii. Whether the impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal is erroneous, perverse, and without considering the true facts relevant to the matter ?” 3 Section 130 of the Customs Act 1962 speaks of appeal to High Court which is quoted below:- “130. Appeal to High Court. – (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

(2) The [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] or the other party aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be – (a) filed within one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] or the other party; (b) accompanied by a fee of two hundred rupees where such appeal is filed by the other party; (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. [(2A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days referred to in clause (a) of 4 sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within that period.]” The Customs Act, 1962 also speaks of appeal to Supreme Court which is quoted below:- “130E. Appeal to Supreme Court. – An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from – [(a) any judgment of the High Court delivered – (i) in an appeal made under section 130; or (ii) on a reference made under section 130 by the Appellate Tribunal before the 1st day of July, 2003;

(iii) on a reference made under section 130A, in any case which, on its own motion or on an oral application made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after passing of the judgment, the High Court certifies to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court; or] (b) any order passed [before the establishment of the National Tax Tribunal] by the Appellate Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. [(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty shall include the determination of taxability or excisability of goods for the purpose of assessment.]” On perusal of Sections 130 and 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 in our opinion, this appeal should be preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Act. 5 The appeal and the connected application preferred by the department are dismissed. Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record of the appellant to receive certified copy of the tribunal from the department and replace it with a photocopy of the same. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) B.Pal