The Delhi High Court has directed the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, to remain physically present at the next hearing to explain how instructions fixing monetary limits for filing appeals are being implemented uniformly across Commissionerates.
The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain passed the direction while hearing two appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports) against CESTAT orders.
The appeals were challenged as not maintainable because the amounts involved were below the ₹1 crore threshold prescribed for appeals before High Courts under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) instructions dated November 2, 2023.
The customs department argued that the issue was recurring and concerned the interpretation of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962— specifically, whether a statement must be recorded before the adjudicating authority. It also pointed out that the Delhi High Court's judgment in Amit Exports v. Union of India had been followed by CESTAT in several cases and was pending before the Supreme Court.
The Court noted that the Department had not claimed that the amount involved in either appeal exceeded the prescribed monetary limit. It also observed that the instructions were issued to reduce government litigation, but the Department continued to file appeals despite the binding limits.
The Court remarked that this was “not the one sole case” in which the department had continued filing appeals in defiance of the instructions.
The CBIC instructions provide that appeals before High Courts should not be filed where the amount involved is below ₹1 crore, subject to specified exceptions, including challenges to the constitutional validity of a provision, challenges to a notification or order held illegal or ultra vires, and classification or refund issues of a legal or recurring nature.
The Court noted that the Department had neither argued nor pleaded that the appeals involved a classification issue.
As such, it directed the Chief Commissioner to assist the Court on the procedure adopted to ensure uniform implementation of the instructions, rather than leaving it to the discretion of individual Commissionerates.
The matter will be heard next on November 20, 2026.
For Appellant: Advocates Piyush Bansal, Ruchita Shrivastava
For Respondent: Advocates Ajay Aggarwal, Naveen Bindal, Madhur Aggarwal and Abhishek Dagar.