LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/commissioner-of-customs-and-central-excise-goa-vs-m-s-adani-exports-ltd-20200211/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Goa vs M/s Adani Exports Ltd.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
11 February 2020
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 6021 of 2009
Result
Disposed
Bench
R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian
Citation
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 887 : 2020 INSC 164
Supreme Court Reports [2020] 3 S.C.R. 887 : 2020 INSC 164
Headnote

Customs Act, 1962: s.130A (1) and (4) – High Court is not mandatorily obligated to call for a statement from the Tribunal in every case before deciding application under s.130A – A reading of s.130A (1) and (4) makes it clear that if the Commissioner of Customs or other party within the prescribed period of limitation applies in the prescribed form to the High Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal, the High Court may do so – Thus, High Court has a discretion on the facts of each case either to do so or not to do so.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: The High Court is not mandatorily required to call for a statement from the Tribunal in every case, where a reference is made. This is so because of the language of Sub-Section 4 which opens with an ‘if’. A reading of Section 130A (1) & (4) would make it clear that if the Commissioner of Customs or other party within the prescribed period of limitation applies in the prescribed form to the High Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal, the High Court may do so. What is clear on a reading of sub-section (4) is that the High Court has a discretion on the facts of each case either to do so or not to do so. This becomes absolutely plain from the first word in sub-section (4), namely, “if”. There is nothing in the language of Section 130A which first mandatorily obliges the High Court to call for a statement from the Tribunal before deciding any such application. [Paras 2, 3] [889 E-H; 890-A]

Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Central

Manufacturing Tech. Institute 2002 (146) ELT 27 – overruled.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Having heard Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue for sometime and after perusing the reference order to a larger Bench dated 14.03.2018, it is first necessary to set out Section 130A(1) & (4) of the Customs Act. “130A. Application to High Court.- (1) The Commissioner of Customs or the other party may, within one hundred and eighty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under section 129B passed before the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, amo
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →