TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tanisha Bhatia and Ms. Anjali Choudhary, Advs. for R-2&3. JUDGMENT (ORAL) AJAY DIGPAUL, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi, challenging Order No. 67/25-Cus dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Revisionary Authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. By the said order, the Department's revision against the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.05.2023 was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that Ms. Shabnam Parveen/respondent no. 1, is an Indian national, who arrived at IGI Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi from Bangkok by on 09.05.2022. After crossing the Green Channel, she was intercepted by Customs officers and diverted for detailed examination. 3. A detention rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....detention receipt and to file documents for, release or re-export of the goods. 8. An application dated 22.06.2022 was received by the competent Customs Authority on 24.06.2022. In the said application, it was stated that the detained articles comprised two gold pieces of 24 carat purity, weighing 300 grams, and valued at Rs.14,07,210 as on 10.05.2022. It was further stated that, through her authorised advocate, respondent no. 1 waived issuance of a written SCN as well as the right to personal hearing, and requested that the matter be decided on merits. 9. At the same time, the authorised advocate for respondent no. 1 also filed a retraction application on 22.06.2022, which was received by the petitioner on 24.06.2022. It was mentione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Customs (Appeals), by Order-in-Appeal dated 09.05.2023, took note of the petitioner's retraction of the statement given earlier dated 10.05.2022 and the purchase bills produced in her and her husband's name, and observed that the Department had not disputed these aspects. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on the footing that the retraction could not be brushed aside as an afterthought and that the claim of ownership deserved acceptance. The Commissioner (Appeals) further observed that the case appeared to be one of non-declaration rather than a clandestine attempt at smuggling, particularly as there was no finding of ingenious concealment or habitual offending, and concluded that absolute confiscation on acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder. The Revisionary Authority found no infirmity in the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.05.2023 and, by Order No. 67/25-Cus dated 12.12.2025, dismissed the revision. 17. In W.P.(C) 7637/2025, by order dated 22.12.2025, this Court recorded that, in view of the revision order dated 12.12.2025, the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.05.2023 was required to be given effect to. The order also recorded the amounts payable towards redemption fine and penalty, both quantified at Rs.1,46,000, and issued directions to facilitate release, including observations on warehousing charges for the period noted therein. 18. In the present writ petition, the Department seeks quashing of the revision order dated 12.12.2025 and restoration of the Order-in-Original dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the Revisional Authority exceeded the limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 129DD by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own view for that of the adjudicating authority. 22. We are unable to agree with the contentions raised by Mr. Singla. As explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 477, the writ of certiorari under Article 226 is not an appellate jurisdiction and does not permit this Court to reappreciate evidence or to substitute its own view on facts for that of the statutory authority. The writ is confined to whether the impugned order discloses a jurisdictional error or an error apparent on the face of the record, or whether it is vitiated by perv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction in the present case. The Revisional Authority has observed the Department's contention on ineligibility and the Green Channel violation, yet has upheld the appellate order which does not grant any immunity to respondent no. 1. The release is permitted only upon payment of redemption fine and penalty, along with applicable duty. The orders under challenge therefore do not condone the violation and instead calibrate the consequence. 25. The petitioner's further submission that the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 129DD is equally unpersuasive because the Revisionary Authority has not undertaken any reappreciation of evidence. It has affirmed the appellate reasoning on the limited footing that the Departmen....