Supreme Court upholds Customs Act decision on redemption fine vs. confiscation

The Supreme Court upheld the revisionary jurisdiction's decision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, opting for redemption fine and penalty over absolute confiscation of foreign currency. The Court found no grounds for interference, emphasizing the importance of transparency in legal proceedings and dismissing the writ petition due to deliberate non-disclosure of facts by the respondent. The impugned order was upheld, and the directive to release the bank guarantee within six weeks was issued.

---

---

Issues:
Impugned order passed by the Joint Secretary under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 challenged by the Commissioner of Customs.
1. Notice Requirement for Customs Authorities:
The petitioner argues that no notice was issued to the Customs Authorities while passing the impugned order. The respondent contends that notice is not mandatory as the competent authority can peruse records and pass orders based on them. Reference to Sections 128 and 129B of the Act is made to support the argument that notice is not required under Section 129DD.
2. Merits of the Controversy:
The petitioner raises concerns about inconsistency in the respondent's stand regarding possession of foreign currency. The revisionary jurisdiction considered various factors, including liberalization in foreign exchange matters, and decided against absolute confiscation, opting for redemption fine and penalty instead. The petitioner challenges this decision on merit.
3. Non-Disclosure of Facts:
The Court notes that interim orders were initially granted but later vacated due to deliberate concealment of facts by the respondent. The Supreme Court's stance on approaching the court with clean hands is cited. The non-disclosure of facts led to the dismissal of the interim application and subsequent dismissal of the writ petition. The aspect of non-disclosure is deemed crucial for both interim and final determinations.

The judgment addresses each issue comprehensively. Firstly, regarding the notice requirement, the Court observes that while no notice was issued, the lack of specific averments regarding unavailability of records leads to no interference with the impugned order. Secondly, on the merits of the controversy, the Court upholds the revisionary jurisdiction's decision based on considerations of liberalization in foreign exchange matters and previous legal precedents. The Court finds no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, the issue of non-disclosure of facts is crucial, as the Court emphasizes the importance of approaching the court with clean hands. The non-disclosure led to the dismissal of the writ petition, highlighting the significance of transparency in legal proceedings. The judgment concludes with the dismissal of the writ petition and the directive to release the bank guarantee within six weeks.

---