Revisional jurisdiction: upholding redemption with fines and duty is permissible where record lacks independent material displacing ownership.

The court reviewed whether a revisional authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 129DD by upholding an appellate order permitting redemption of detained gold. It held that where the record contains an accepted retraction and documentary ownership proof and the Department produces no independent material to displace them, affirming redemption subject to payment of redemption fine, penalty and duty is a permissible exercise of discretion and does not amount to jurisdictional error, perversity or impermissible reappreciation of evidence. The revisional order calibrating consequences rather than ordering absolute confiscation was therefore sustained and not susceptible to interference in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Revisional Authority erred in dismissing the departmental revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 and upholding the appellate order permitting redemption of detained gold upon payment of redemption fine, penalty and duty; (ii) Whether the Revisional Authority exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence or by permitting redemption despite alleged statutory ineligibility and classification of the goods.

Issue (i): Whether the Revisional Authority erred in dismissing the departmental revision and upholding the appellate order permitting redemption.

Analysis: The Court examined whether the revisional order disclosed jurisdictional error, perversity, or manifest illegality. The appellate order had accepted a retraction and documentary proof of ownership which the Department had not displaced by independent material. The revisional exercise affirmed the appellate conclusion on the limited ground that the Department failed to adduce material to dislodge the ownership claim or to establish carrier or habitual offending. The relief granted by the appellate and revisional orders was conditional, involving payment of redemption fine, penalty and applicable duty, rather than immunity from liability.

Conclusion: The Revisional Authority did not err in dismissing the revision; the order falls within available discretionary remedies and does not reveal jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest arbitrariness. The appellate and revisional orders are to be given effect to.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revisional Authority exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence or by permitting redemption despite alleged statutory ineligibility and the characterisation of goods.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence and is confined to jurisdictional errors. The Revisional Authority's conclusions were based on the record showing absence of independent material from the Department to contradict the retraction and ownership documents, and on the nature of the lapse being non-declaration rather than organised smuggling, concealment or habitual offending. The discretion under the statutory redemption provision is fact-sensitive and may be exercised where absolute confiscation is disproportionate; the revisional order calibrated consequences by retaining fines, penalties and duty obligations.

Conclusion: The Revisional Authority did not exceed its jurisdiction under Section 129DD and did not improperly reappreciate evidence; permitting redemption on payment of imposed sums was within its discretionary power.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of the revisional order is not maintainable on grounds of jurisdictional error or perversity; the revisional order upholding the appellate order is affirmed and must be given effect to, subject to payment of redemption fine, penalty and applicable duty, and directions already issued regarding warehousing charges continue to apply.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional authority affirms an appellate order on the record and there is no independent material displacing accepted retraction or ownership evidence, exercise of discretion to permit redemption with payment of prescribed fines, penalties and duty does not amount to jurisdictional error or impermissible reappreciation of evidence and is not susceptible to interference in writ jurisdiction.

---