TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority in the Government of India, under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Customs Act"), the present writ petition has been filed by Raju Sharma and Surender Gupta, the respondents in the said Revision Application. 2. The issue in controversy is narrow, and a brief overview of the facts would, therefore, suffice. 3. Petitioner no. 1 Raju Sharma was intercepted, by the officers of the Customs, when he was about to board Flight no. EK517, for Dubai on 6th February, 2015. Personal search of Petitioner No. 1 resulted in the recovery of, inter alia, Indian currency of Rs. 4 lacs and 40 Dirhams. The foreign currency, being within the permissible limit for carriage abroad, was returned to Petitioner no. 1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrency on the directions of Petitioner No. 2, both the petitioners were liable to penalty, under Section 114 of the Customs Act. 7. Resultantly, the AC ordered confiscation of the excess Indian currency of Rs. 3,75,000/- under Section 113 of the Customs Act, but permitted redemption, thereof, on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- within one month. Individual penalties of Rs. 25,000/- each were also imposed on the petitioners. 8. The Revenue appealed, against the aforesaid Order-in-Original dated 2nd August, 2016, of the AC, to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner (Appeals)"). The only issue pressed by the Revenue, before the Commissioner (Appeals), was that the AC ought not to have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner No. 2 had been traced and was present before him, redemption of the currency could be given to Petitioner No. 2. 10. The matter was carried further by the Revenue by way of Revision Application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act before the Revisionary Authority. 11. Vide the impugned order dated 21st August, 2019, the Revisionary Authority allowed the Revision Application of the revenue and set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 12th September, 2018 (supra), of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revisionary Authority noted the only contention, as advanced before him by the Revenue, as being that redemption of the currency ought not to have been granted to Petitioner No. 1, as he was only the carrier of the currency and not the own....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, inasmuch as Section 125 of the Customs Act requires redemption to be granted to the owner of the goods and, if the owner of the goods is not known, to the person from whose possession the goods were seized. For ready reference, Section 125 of the Customs Act is reproduced as under:- "125. Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation- (1) Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oes not indicate that option to redeem the currency had been granted, by the AC, to Petitioner No. 1. The Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) makes the matter clear by observing that, as the owner, i.e., Petitioner No. 2, was known, redemption of the currency could be granted to Petitioner No. 2. In this backdrop, it is impossible to understand how the Revisionary Authority set aside the said order, by holding that redemption of the currency could not be granted to Petitioner No. 1. 16. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that both the petitioners were before the Revisionary Authority. Even if, for a moment, it were to be assumed that the Revisionary Authority read the orders of the authorities below as allowing the redem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t with the authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals), while rejecting the appeal of the revenue, correctly noted this legal position, and observed that, as the AC had exercised discretion in favour of allowing redemption of the seized currency, on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-, no occasion arose to interfere therewith. We are entirely in agreement with the Commissioner (Appeals). Exercise of discretion, by judicial, or quasi-judicial authorities, merits interference only where the exercise is perverse or tainted by patent illegality, or is tainted by oblique motives Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. UOI (2017) 7 SCC 221. No illegality, much less perversity, is discernible in the decision, of the AC, to allow redemption of the seized curr....