Tribunal's decisions around aircraft imports were under scrutiny for compliance with statutory conditions, raising substantial questions regarding appealability under customs regulations.

The Court :- We have heard learned counsel on either side.

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

(1) Whether the appeal is maintainable at the instance of the department on the ground as to the monetary limit prescribed by the CBEC in Circular dated 30.6.2013 ?

(2) Whether the appeal at the instance of the revenue is maintainable before this court and whether the classification issue or the rate of duty arises for consideration in this appeal ?

(3) Whether the Learned Tribunal has grossly erred in failing to appreciate that the Respondent is incorrect in ordering an entry of an aircraft in India without compliance of the conditions of Import Licensing Notes to CTH 88 and condition of relevant notifications No. 12/2012 Cus-dated 17.03.2012 while it should have treated it as Prohibited goods liable to confiscation u/s 111(0) of Customs Act, 1962 ?

(4) Whether the Learned Tribunal has grossly erred in failing to appreciate that the Board's Circular is an administrative order and cannot have overriding effect on the notification condition passed by legislation and as such ignoring the condition stated in point No. (h) of condition of Import Licensing Notes to CTH-88 and sub-clause (i) of condition 75 of SL. No. 450 of Notification 12/2012 Cus-dated 17.03.2012 and relying on the Board's Circular No. 16/2012 Cus-dated 13 June, 2012 having no over- riding effect on the notification issued u/s 25 of Customs Act, 1962 is neither correct nor justifiable ?

(5) Whether the Learned Tribunal has grossly erred in considering the fact that the matter falls under the sub-clause (u) of the condition 75 of Sl. No 450 of Notification No. 12/2012 Cus dated 17.03.2012 which clarifies that the said aircraft can be retained in India up to 60 days of entry to India with the due sanction/permission from the Ministry of Civil Aviation?

(6) Whether the Learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that after expiry of sixty (60) days, the retention of the aircraft becomes a "prohibited goods" as per section 2(33) of Customs Act, 1962 and that the action of the appellant of seizure u/s 110 and confiscation u/s 111 (d), (j) and (o) of Customs Act, 1962 in terms of section 2(33) of Customs Act, 1962 is correct?

(7) Whether the Learned Tribunal has grossly erred in considering the fact that entire process of importation of aircraft is in violation of legal provisions and is illegal/improper importation and consequently, the aircraft is liable for confiscation under section 111 (d), (1) and (o) of Customs Act, 1962 ?

(8) Whether the Learned Tribunal has grossly erred in considering the fact that at the time of entry of the said Aircraft in question the respondent had a valid import permit from DGCA but subject to a condition which was not complied with and as such, the goods became prohibited and are rightly confiscated under section 111 (d), (j) and (o) of Customs Act, 1962 in terms of 2(33) of Customs Act, 1962 ?

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that a contempt application being CC/84/2025 has been filed by the appellant before the learned single Bench alleging violation of the order dated 21.1.2014 in WP/20/2014. The copy of the said order was placed before us for consideration. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned single Bench observed that the Customs authority have already invoked the Bank Guarantee and they were directed to keep the said amount separately in fixed deposit carrying interest with any nationalised bank until further orders that may be passed by the CESTAT either on an application for stay or in an appeal itself.

The learned Tribunal has disposed of the appeal by order dated 3.11.2023, which is impugned in this appeal. In the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has directed release of the amount in possession of the department maintained by way of an interest earning fixed deposit in terms of the order passed in WP/20/2014. As could b