Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) vs Shri Durlav Paul on 16 February, 2026

Calcutta High Court

Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) vs Shri Durlav Paul on 16 February, 2026

Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj

Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj

OD 9


                                 ORDER SHEET
                                CUSTA/43/2025
                          IA NO:GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                             SPECIAL JURISDICTION
                                 ORIGINAL SIDE

            COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
                                 VS
                          SHRI DURLAV PAUL



  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
                    AND
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
  Date: 16th February, 2026.



                                                                        Appearance:
                                                              Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv.
                                                             Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv.
                                                                  ...for the appellant

                                                               Ms. Alisha Das, Adv.
                                                          Ms. Rupomita Ghosh, Adv.
                                                               ...for the respondent

The Court: We have heard learned advocates on either side.

There is a delay of 23 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 2025 is allowed.

The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law for

consideration.

2

“A. Whether the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the

Learned Tribunal is sustainable in the eye of law when the Learned

Tribunal while considering the genuineness of the alleged invoices

and GST returns failed to examine the provisions of Central Goods

and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Rules framed thereunder and

erroneously concluded that the seized gold bars were the “converted

gold bar”, out of the jewellery given to M/s. Maa Durga Jewellery by

M/s. H.K. Jewellers?

B. Whether the impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal is

correct when the Learned Tribunal mechanically allowed the appeal

of the respondent with consequential relief without appreciating the

outcome of the investigation and the scope and ambit of section

111(b), 111(d) and section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962?

C. Whether the statements recorded under section 108 of the

Customs Act, 1962 would remain valid as evidence when the

respondent could not prove that the statements had been recorded

under coercion and fraud?

D. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the

Learned Tribunal is right and justified in not imposing penalty upon

the respondent under section 112(b) and section 114AA of the

Customs Act, 1962 and while passing the impugned order whether

the Learned Tribunal acted in perversity by not considering the

finding of the adjudicating authority, appellate authority and the role

played by the respondent in the instant case?”

3

The appellant shall file requisite number of informal paper books prepared

out of Court including therein all relevant materials used before the learned

Court below within ten weeks from date and serve copies thereof upon the

learned advocate for the respondent.

Settlement of index and all other formalities are dispensed with.

Since the respondent is represented, service of notice of appeal stands

dispensed with.

Let this matter again appear in the monthly list of June, 2026.

IA No.GA/2/2025 is disposed of.

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)

(UDAY KUMAR, J.)

B.Pal