Customs redemption discretion upheld where absolute confiscation was based on relevant facts and a non-perverse view.

Under the Customs Act, the discretion to permit redemption in lieu of confiscation lies with the adjudicating authority, and a High Court will not interfere in writ jurisdiction where that discretion is exercised on relevant considerations and the resulting view is possible and not perverse. The original authority refused redemption on the basis of inconsistent statements, doubt over ownership, and concealment; the appellate authority granted redemption without adequately addressing those findings; and the revisional authority restored absolute confiscation and penalty after considering the material, including conscious concealment and the quantity involved. The writ challenge to that revisional order was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order restoring absolute confiscation and penalty, and declining redemption under the Customs Act, called for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The discretion under section 125 of the Customs Act to allow redemption in lieu of confiscation is vested in the adjudicating authority. The original authority recorded reasons for refusing redemption, including inconsistent statements, doubt regarding ownership, and the manner of concealment. The appellate authority granted redemption without adequately dealing with the subsequent statement and the factual basis recorded in the original order. The revisional authority evaluated the material, noted the large quantity and conscious concealment, and concluded that absolute confiscation was justified. In writ jurisdiction, interference was not warranted where the authorities had considered relevant facts, applied the governing principles, and taken a possible view that was not perverse.

Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional order failed and the restoration of absolute confiscation and penalty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed as the revisional decision was found to be a permissible exercise of discretion based on relevant considerations.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the authority vested with discretion under the confiscation provisions considers all relevant facts and takes a possible non-perverse view, the High Court will not interfere in writ jurisdiction merely because another view on redemption is also possible.

---