Petition Dismissed: Court Upholds Rejection of Customs Revision Application, Citing Lack of Procedural Errors.

The HC dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of a revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner, found carrying foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 33,06,667.60, was labeled a habitual offender. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments, including claims of procedural lapses and reliance on bail application observations. It concluded that there was no patent perversity or illegality in the lower authorities' decisions. The court emphasized its limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and upheld the lower authorities' decisions, dismissing the petition without costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
The principal challenge is to an order dated 29 November, 2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner & Ex-officio Additional Secretary to Government of India, rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The order dated 08 October, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III, dismissing the petitioner's appeal was confirmed.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was intercepted at the airport and found carrying a substantial amount of foreign currency. The Customs officers conducted a detailed examination and found the petitioner to be carrying foreign currency equivalent to Indian currency valued at Rs. 33,06,667.60. The petitioner claimed to be an NRI with business interests abroad, but his past involvement in cases of currency seizure raised suspicion.

Contentions and Findings:
1. The petitioner challenged the findings of all authorities below, arguing that observations made by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a bail application were not conclusive evidence. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Customs Act procedures were followed independently of the bail application.
2. The petitioner claimed he was not informed of his right under Section 102 of the Customs Act, but the court found this contention untenable based on the show cause notice.
3. The court noted that the revisional authority correctly labeled the petitioner as a habitual offender, a finding not challenged by the petitioner.
4. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit, as there was no patent perversity or illegality in the orders of the lower authorities. The jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was limited to examining such issues, and the petition was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing that it would not interfere with factual findings unless there was clear illegality. The petition was rejected without costs.

---