Appellant's Revision Dismissal Upheld, Civil Appeal Dismissed with Costs

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's revision, ruling that all remedies invoked before the declaration under the Scheme were deemed withdrawn upon the payment order. The High Court's decision to not interfere with the revision dismissal was affirmed, resulting in the dismissal of the civil appeal with costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of imported goods due to suspected undervaluation.
2. Show cause notice for confiscation and penalty imposition.
3. Rejection of declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme.
4. Order passed on revision application by the Government of India.
5. Writ petition challenging the order on the revision application.
6. Interpretation of Section 88(f) and Section 90 of the Scheme.
7. Effect of Section 90(4) on pending appeals or references.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's imported goods were seized at Bombay Airport on suspicion of undervaluation after clearing customs by paying duty. A show cause notice for confiscation and penalty imposition was issued, leading to confirmation of confiscation and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, followed by dismissal of an appeal.

2. The appellant filed a declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, which was rejected for non-payment of the required sum within the specified time frame. Prior to this, a revision application was filed against the order passed in appeal, and the Government of India, through a Joint Secretary, issued an order treating the revision application as withdrawn as per the deeming provision in the Finance Act.

3. The rejection of the declaration under the Scheme was challenged through a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was subsequently dismissed. The appellant contended that the determination of the payable amount under the Scheme should have been made differently, citing Section 88(f) and arguing against the validity of the determination.

4. The interpretation of Section 88(f) and Section 90 of the Scheme was crucial in determining the correctness of the authority's decision. The appellant's counsel argued for a specific interpretation under Section 88(f), emphasizing the duty payment requirement for confiscated goods and the corresponding determination of the payable amount.

5. Section 90 of the Scheme outlined the time and manner of payment of tax arrears, providing for the conclusive nature of the authority's order on the determined sum. Sub-section (4) of Section 90 had a significant impact, deeming pending appeals or references as withdrawn upon the order of payment being passed, which affected the appellant's revision application.

6. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's revision, stating that all remedies invoked prior to the declaration under the Scheme were deemed withdrawn upon the order of payment. Consequently, the High Court's decision not to interfere with the revision dismissal was deemed correct, leading to the dismissal of the civil appeal with costs.

---