Concurrent customs fact findings remain immune from writ reappreciation absent perversity, evidentiary deficiency, arbitrariness, jurisdictional error, or manifest illegality.

Customs confiscation for non-declaration of imported gold is discussed through the evidentiary significance of a nil customs declaration, recovery records, a signed panchnama and a statement recorded under Section 108. The notes explain that an unsupported claim of interception before access to the Red Channel may not displace contemporaneous records, particularly for an experienced traveller. They further state that erased CCTV footage does not necessarily negate documentary evidence, and that a later retraction requires contemporaneous support for alleged coercion. Judicial review is described as limited: concurrent factual findings are not reappreciated unless perverse, unsupported by evidence, arbitrary, jurisdictionally defective or manifestly illegal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner established that he was intercepted before he could declare the gold articles through the Red Channel; (ii) Whether the subsequently retracted statement recorded under Section 108 and the non-availability of CCTV footage undermined the confiscation findings; (iii) Whether the concurrent factual findings warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner established that he was intercepted before he could declare the gold articles through the Red Channel.

Analysis: The Customs Declaration Form recorded a nil declaration, while there was no material supporting the assertion of interception at the aerobridge. The petitioner was an experienced international traveller familiar with customs formalities; the contemporaneous record supported the finding that he crossed the Green Channel without declaring dutiable gold.

Conclusion: The plea that the petitioner was prevented from making the mandatory declaration was rejected, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequently retracted statement recorded under Section 108 and the non-availability of CCTV footage undermined the confiscation findings.

Analysis: The CCTV footage had been automatically erased before the preservation order was made, and its absence did not displace the contemporaneous documentary evidence. The detailed eleven-page statement bore the petitioner's signatures throughout, was corroborated by the signed panchnama, and was retracted only after release on bail without contemporaneous proof of coercion.

Conclusion: The statement was rightly relied upon and the absence of CCTV footage did not invalidate the findings, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the concurrent factual findings warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Judicial review does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of a plausible view of statutory authorities. The findings rested on the declaration form, recovery proceedings, panchnama, statement and surrounding circumstances, and were neither perverse, unsupported by evidence, arbitrary nor affected by jurisdictional error or manifest illegality.

Conclusion: No ground for writ interference with the concurrent findings was made out, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty findings founded on non-declaration of the imported gold remained legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, concurrent factual findings based on relevant contemporaneous evidence are not open to reappreciation unless shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by manifest illegality.

---