Customs Appeals Cannot Face Maintainability Challenge At Pre-Admission Stage: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court on 10 July held that parties in customs appeals cannot challenge the maintainability of such appeals at the pre-admission stage, and must raise objections relating to jurisdiction or maintainability only after the Court determines whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law.

A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar rejected the respondents' request for a preliminary hearing on maintainability while hearing a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). It observed:

“This observation confirms that the statutory scheme intentionally segregates the “Admission” phase from the “Final Hearing” phase. The Respondent's right to challenge the maintainability, the jurisdiction, or the “rate of duty” notification is not lost; it is merely deferred to the post admission hearing under Section 130(5).”

The Revenue filed the appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows appeals before the High Court against CESTAT orders involving substantial questions of law.

Before examining whether the appeals raised any substantial question of law, the Court heard objections from the respondents seeking a preliminary hearing on maintainability, including issues relating to jurisdiction and the applicability of provisions concerning the "rate of duty".

Rejecting the objection, the Bench held that the Customs Act creates a self-contained appellate framework that separates the admission stage from the final hearing stage. At the admission stage, the High Court only examines whether the appeal raises a substantial question of law.

It further observed that the admission stage acts as a “gatekeeping” exercise and does not require the Court to conduct a detailed examination of merits, jurisdictional disputes or other contested issues. It also held that respondents can raise objections relating to maintainability, jurisdiction or the applicability of statutory provisions, but they must do so during the post-admission hearing under Section 130(5) of the Customs Act. It held:

“the Respondents' presence at this bar for the purpose of challenging maintainability is premature, and we must proceed with the screening process as mandated by the Act.”

Lastly, the Bench held that allowing respondents to raise such objections at the threshold would disrupt the statutory process and delay the admission of appeals. It declined the request for a preliminary hearing and proceeded to consider the Revenue's appeals for admission and interim relief.

The matters are listed for further consideration on 21 July 2026.

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Ld. Sr. Adv. and Mr. Anurag Roy, Ld. Adv.

For Respondent: Mr. Rahul Tangri, Ld. Adv. and Ms. Taniya Roy, Ld. Adv.