Appeal to Supreme Court
Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with 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; The Act came into force on 01 Feb 1963.
An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from--
1[(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 2[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 customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment.
Section 130E, The Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 1962).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 2
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Siddachalam Exports Private LTD vs Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-iii
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The procedure prescribed under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 must be strictly adhered to for determining the value of goods entered for exportation, irrespective of whether any duty is leviable. Once the transaction value is challenged, the Revenue must bear the burden of proving mis-valuation by sequentially proceeding through Rules 5 to 8, with market enquiry permissible only as a last resort after exhausting alternative methods. Deviation from this mandatory statutory procedure vitiates the proceedings and warrants remand for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
On this section: The jurisdictional provision under which the appeal was filed; Court noted that the amplitude of such appeals is very wide but subject to principles of appellate restraint where CESTAT's findings are based on proper legal principles
-
Commr. of Customs vs Sayed Ali
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A proper officer under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, is only such a customs officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and reassessment of duty by the Board or Commissioner of Customs. Mere appointment as an officer of Customs with territorial jurisdiction over a port is insufficient to confer proper officer status. Accordingly, a show cause notice under Section 28 of the Act for reassessment of goods cleared for home consumption can only be issued by the officer assigned assessment functions in the jurisdictional area where the bill of entry was filed and the goods were cleared, not by any other officer even if he has territorial jurisdiction over that area. In the present case, since the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, was never assigned the specific function of assessment or reassessment of goods entered for home consumption under Section 28, he was not competent to issue the show cause notice, notwithstanding his territorial jurisdiction.
On this section: Basis for appeals to Supreme Court from Tribunal orders; under which these civil appeals were filed.
-
Mustan Taherbhai vs Commnr. of Central Excise & Customs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a tribunal or court has been specifically directed by the Supreme Court to reconsider a matter by first establishing the foundational facts and then applying law in light of those facts, the tribunal must comply with such directions through fresh and genuine consideration, notwithstanding its earlier views on the matter. In cases involving customs duty on Indian-manufactured vessels where excise duty has been paid at original clearance, the question of applicability of subsequent customs notifications and the legal fiction doctrine requires evaluation against the actual facts that the vessel was manufactured and cleared in India with excise duty payment, not merely applying legal fictions created by notifications without factual foundation. The Tribunal's failure to comply with supreme court remand directions constitutes vitiation of decision.
On this section: Basis for civil appeal to Supreme Court against Tribunal orders
-
The Commnr. of Customs(gen) Mumbai vs Abdulla Koyloth
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the burden of proof lies on customs authorities to establish that a transaction value declared by an importer is incorrect, once it is established through credible evidence (such as market surveys conducted with the importer's acknowledgment or clear misdeclaration of goods) that the declared value does not reflect the true transaction value, the transaction value may be rejected and the sequential valuation procedure under Rules 5-8 of the Customs Valuation Rules must be applied. The findings of misdeclaration, once established through consistent evidence including admissions by the importer, must be properly examined and weighed by the appellate authority rather than being ignored or dismissed summarily. A proper remand is warranted when the appellate tribunal has failed to appreciate material evidence on record, including the importer's own statements accepting the correctness of alternative valuations.
On this section: Appeal to Supreme Court - grounds for appeal from Tribunal to Supreme Court in customs matters
-
Gammon India LTD vs Commnr. of Customs, Mumbai
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a contract for construction of roads has been awarded by NHAI to a joint venture entity, the benefit of an exemption notification conditioning exemption on import by 'a person who has been awarded a contract' is available only to the joint venture entity or someone importing provably on its behalf, not to an individual partner company importing in its own name and making payment from its own account, even if that partner is designated as lead partner. Individual partners cannot claim exemption benefits intended for the joint venture entity by simply asserting a legal relationship without concrete evidence of acting as agent for the joint venture. The language of exemption conditions must be strictly construed, and the person claiming exemption must clearly establish compliance with all conditions.
On this section: Provides the appellate jurisdiction basis for this Supreme Court appeal against Tribunal order
-
Chandna Impex P. LTD vs Commr. of Customs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A question regarding the jurisdiction of the authority issuing a show cause notice under the Customs Act (specifically whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Additional Director General is a proper officer under Section 28) constitutes a substantial question of law that must be examined on appeal by the High Court with reasoned orders. The High Court cannot dismiss statutory appeals by non-speaking orders that merely endorse lower court reasoning without independent application of mind. Where such a jurisdictional question is raised but not properly examined by the High Court, it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication rather than remit to the High Court first, particularly when new precedent (Sayed Ali) has emerged that was not available during the original Tribunal hearing, to avoid prolongation of litigation.
On this section: Jurisdiction For Appeal To Supreme Court Against High Court Order On Substantial Questions Of Law
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… COAL INDIA LIMITED APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KOLKATA RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T UJJAL BHUYAN, J. This is an appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 20.04.2010 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in appeal No.CDM-164/2004. 2. Be it stated that appellant had filed appeal No.CDM-164/2004 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate …
-
… Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); - (ii) Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951); - (iii) Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961); - (iv) Section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) before the establishment of National Tax Tribunal; - (v) Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); - (vi) Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971); - (vii) Section 374 and 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) read with Section 2 of Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 (28 of 1970); - (viii) …
-
… Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); - (ii) Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951); - (iii) Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961); - (iv) Section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) before the establishment of National Tax Tribunal; - (v) Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); - (vi) Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971); - (vii) Section 374 and 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) read with Section 2 of Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 (28 of 1970); - (viii) …
Questions about Section 130E
What have the courts held on Section 130E of the Customs Act?
Siddachalam Exports Private LTD vs Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-iii (01 Apr 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: The jurisdictional provision under which the appeal was filed; Court noted that the amplitude of such appeals is very wide but subject to principles of appellate restraint where CESTAT's findings are based on proper legal principles. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2011.
How do I find court cases under Section 130E of the Customs Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Customs Act 1962 130E, section 130E Customs Act 1962, section 130E of the Customs Act. People searching for it also type 130e customs act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Siddachalam Exports Private LTD vs Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-iii (01 Apr 2011).
What should I read with Section 130E of the Customs Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 130 (Appeal to High Court), section 130A (Application to High Court), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 130E of the Customs Act come into force?
Section 130E of the Customs Act, cited as Customs Act 1962 130E, came into force on 01 Feb 1963, having been enacted on 13 Dec 1962. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 28. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded2145 words
- 2. Definitions1638 words
- 129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal1170 words
- 27. Claim for refund of duty1060 words
- 127C. Procedure on receipt of an application under section 127B1056 words
- 138C. Admissibility of micro films, facsimile copies of documents and computer print outs as documents and as evidence872 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.