This compilation indexes twelve High Court rulings from 2026 in which Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 — and, in several cases, related provisions — was engaged before various Indian High Courts. The cases span benches at Allahabad, Bombay, Gauhati, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, and Madras, and arise primarily from appeals against orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), as well as from writ petitions and criminal miscellaneous cases. This index is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured, citable starting point for identifying recent judicial activity under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference compiled from source data; it does not constitute legal advice, tax advice, or a recommendation of any course of action. Readers must verify each ruling against the full text of the judgment and check for any subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides a mechanism by which any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) may prefer an appeal to the High Court on any question of law arising out of such order. The appeal lies to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellant or the respondent has its principal place of business or the customs authority having jurisdiction is situated, and the High Court may, after hearing the parties, decide the question of law so raised. The section is thus a second-tier appellate channel that restricts High Court intervention to substantial questions of law, rather than re-appreciation of facts. It is distinct from Section 130A, which provides for reference on a question of law, and from Section 129, which governs appeals before the Tribunal itself.

The 12 rulings

1. M/S Kvn Fmcg Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 18 May 2026
Sections engaged: 130, 35, 73
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ tax (Writ Tax No. 720 of 2026) was filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Neutral Citation No. 2026:AHC-LKO:35617-DB) by M/S Kvn Fmcg Pvt. Ltd. through its authorised signatory. Per the source preview, the petitioner's counsel relied on a series of prior judgments in support of the petition's main prayers; the full substantive ground and outcome are not detailed in the available preview.

2. M/S. A.P.P. Enterprises vs The Commissioner Of Customs

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 29 April 2026
Sections engaged: 130
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals (C.M.A. Nos. 1162 to 1164 of 2014) were filed before the Madras High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Per the source preview, the appeals sought to set aside Stay Order No. 203 of 2012 dated 07.03.2012 and Stay Order No. 204 of 2012 dated 07.03.2012 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, and to allow the respective appeals. The matters were reserved on 15.04.2026 and pronounced on 29.04.2026.

3. Aseebudheen vs State Of Kerala

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 1 April 2026
Sections engaged: 129, 130
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl. M.C. No. 2409 of 2026, Neutral Citation 2026:KER:29731) was filed before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam against an order dated 13.10.2025 in M.C. No. 313 of 2025 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna. Per the source preview, the petitioner — the counter-petitioner in those proceedings — had been served with a preliminary order directing him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to secure good behaviour for a period of three years; the matter came up for admission on 01.04.2026.

4. The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 12 March 2026
Sections engaged: 130, 114A, 129D
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (C.M.A.(MD) No. 256 of 2021 with CMP (MD) No. 2177 of 2021) was filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the order of the CESTAT, South Zone, Chennai in Final Order No. 40831 of 2020 dated 29.10.2020. Per the source preview, the respondent had filed 34 numbers of refund claims; the Commissioner of Customs sought to set aside the impugned CESTAT order.

5. The Commissioner Of Customs vs J.M.Baxi And Co

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 12 March 2026
Sections engaged: 130
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals (C.M.A.(MD) Nos. 1012 and 1013 of 2021 with CMP (MD) Nos. 9390 and 9391 of 2021) were filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Per the source preview, the appeals sought to set aside Final Order No. 41249-41250/2020 dated 18.11.2020 on the file of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone, Chennai. The second appeal (C.M.A.(MD) No. 1013 of 2021) involved Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent and similarly challenged the same final order.

6. M/S. Sri. Kendaganneshwara Swamy vs Commercial Tax Officer

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 10 March 2026
Sections engaged: 129, 130
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 5037 of 2026 (T-RES), Neutral Citation 2026:KHC:14233) was filed before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioners — a partnership firm and a proprietary transport concern based in Chitradurga, Karnataka — challenged actions of the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), Vijayapura, and related state tax authorities; the full substantive ground is not detailed in the available preview.

7. Unais C.M vs State Of Kerala

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 24 February 2026
Sections engaged: 126, 129, 130
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl. M.C. No. 1479 of 2026, Neutral Citation 2026:KER:16646) was filed before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam. Per the source preview, the petitioner — the counter petitioner in M.C. No. 231/2025 on the file of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod — had been served with a preliminary order directing him to show cause why he should not be called upon to execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties; the matter came up for admission on 24.02.2026.

8. Aneesh vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 18 February 2026
Sections engaged: 126, 129, 130
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl. M.C. No. 5639 of 2025, Neutral Citation 2026:KER:14452) was filed before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam against an order dated 28.04.2025 in M.C. No. 443 of 2025 of the Sub Divisional Court, Fort Cochin. Per the source preview, the petitioner — the counter petitioner in those proceedings — had been served with an order directing him to execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/-; the matter came up for admission on 18.02.2026.

9. Having Its Registered Office At 159 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 22 January 2026
Sections engaged: 129, 130
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(C)/318/2026, Neutral Citation GAHC010007882026) was filed before the Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) by M/S Sarvadeva Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act (CIN: U74900WB2013PTC195756), with its registered office at 159 Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata and principal place of business in Assam. Per the source preview, the respondents included the Union of India, the Principal Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Guwahati, and officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Guwahati Zonal Unit; the full substantive ground is not detailed in the available preview.

10. Sandeep Sood vs The Union Of India & Ors

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 22 January 2026
Sections engaged: 108, 130
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application (Misc. Civil Case No. 200 of 2001, Neutral Citation 2026:MPHC-JBP:10216) was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under Section 130-A of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking reference of questions of law arising out of the order dated 12.06.2000 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), New Delhi in Appeal No. C/426/99 NB(D). Per the source preview, the proposed substantial questions of law included whether the applicant was entitled to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon against him, whether the Tribunal was wrong in affirming the adjudicating authority's finding with reduced penalty, whether the Tribunal erred in relying on a co-accused's statement where the entire departmental case rested on it, and whether the Tribunal should have held that the department failed to prove its case.

11. Sainudheen vs State Of Kerala

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 22 January 2026
Sections engaged: 129, 130
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl. M.C. No. 581 of 2026, Neutral Citation 2026:KER:5304) was filed before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam against an order dated 23.12.2025 in M.C. No. 853 of 2025 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur. Per the source preview, the petitioner — the counter petitioner in those proceedings — had been served with a preliminary order calling upon him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount; the matter came up for admission on 22.01.2026.

12. The Commissioner Of Customs Ns Gen Jnch vs B K Rekhatex (Hk) Ltd

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 22 January 2026
Sections engaged: 130
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The customs appeal (Customs Appeal No. 62 of 2025 with Interim Application (L) No. 1342 of 2026, Neutral Citation 2026:BHC-OS:2570-DB) was filed before the Bombay High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, against Final Order No. 85891/2025 dated 6th June, 2025, passed by the CESTAT. Per the source preview, the dispute pertained to 200.58 Metric Tons of Copper Wire Rod 8MM Electrolytic Tough Pitch Copper Wire Rod as per ASTM B49, exported by Union Copper Rod LLC, UAE, under four Bills of Lading; the Commissioner of Customs raised a number of questions characterised as substantial questions of law in paragraph 6 of the memorandum of appeal.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 130 as the dominant appellate vehicle against CESTAT orders. Across multiple cases in this set — including cases involving the Madras High Court (cases 2, 4, and 5), the Bombay High Court (case 12), and the Madhya Pradesh High Court (case 10) — Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is invoked as the primary statutory route for challenging CESTAT orders before the High Court, consistently framed around the existence of substantial questions of law.
Recurring joinder of Section 129 with Section 130 in Kerala and other writ matters. Cases 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11 — spanning the Kerala High Court and Gauhati High Court — engage Sections 129 and 130 together. Several of the Kerala matters also join Section 126. This pattern suggests that challenges involving preliminary executive bond or surety orders before Magistrates are routed through a combination of these provisions at the High Court level.
Bond and surety proceedings form a distinct sub-category. Cases 3 (Aseebudheen), 7 (Unais C.M), 8 (Aneesh), and 11 (Sainudheen) each involve a preliminary order by a Sub Divisional Magistrate directing the petitioner to show cause regarding execution of a personal bond with sureties. This is a recurring procedural posture across the Kerala High Court cases in this compilation.
Commissioner of Customs as appellant. In cases 4, 5, and 12, it is the Commissioner of Customs — rather than the assessee — who has approached the High Court to challenge a CESTAT final order. This reflects the department's use of Section 130 as an appellate tool where it is dissatisfied with Tribunal outcomes.
Outcomes are predominantly not specified in the source data. All twelve entries carry "Outcome not specified in source" as their outcome direction. This is a data-completeness observation for researchers: the source previews are truncated and do not disclose the operative portion of the judgment. Researchers should obtain full-text judgments from official court portals or indiankanoon.org before drawing any conclusions about the merits or disposal of these matters.

How to use this compilation

This index is designed as a first-pass research tool. Each entry provides the court, date, sections engaged, and the available procedural context drawn directly from the source data. Because all twelve entries carry an unspecified outcome in the source, researchers should treat this compilation as a docket-level reference rather than a holdings index. The first step after identifying a case of interest here should always be to retrieve the full text of the judgment from the official High Court portal, indiankanoon.org, or a verified legal database, and to confirm whether the order has been subsequently stayed, reversed, modified, or appealed further.

Researchers should also note that Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is a distinct provision from Section 130 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and from State GST equivalents. The cases in this compilation exclusively engage Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (or, in case 10, Section 130-A of that Act). Cross-regime conflation is a common research error; always verify the parent statute before citing a ruling.

Finally, the CBDT and CBIC periodically issue circulars, instructions, and press notes that may affect the administrative or appellate procedure relevant to a particular Section 130 dispute. Any research exercise should include a check for contemporaneous departmental instructions, as well as verification of whether the court has issued any general or case-specific directions regarding the reference or appeal mechanism under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 130 Customs Act: 12 High Court Rulings Compilation (2026)