TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1014
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....['the Customs Act']. 2. By way of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of Order No. 295/22-Cus dated 20.09.2022 ['Impugned Order'] passed by the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, whereby the Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner under Section 129DD of the Customs Act came to be dismissed. Consequently, the Petitioner also seeks setting aside of the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), as affirmed in revision, and prays for refund of the sale proceeds of the confiscated gold without deduction towards redemption fine, customs duty and penalty together with interest. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. 4. The Petitioner is an Indian passport holder and a resident of Mumbai. On 11.10.2013, he arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Dubai. According to the Customs Department, the Petitioner was intercepted after crossing the Green Channel. Upon examination of his baggage, the officers recovered 477 gold ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the said CCTV footage. However, in response thereto, the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, vide communication issued on 09.04.2014, informed that the CCTV footage relating to 11.10.2013 had already been erased automatically from the system upon expiry of the stipulated period. It was further stated that no intimation had been received from any investigating or concerned agency for preservation of the said CCTV footage. 8. Upon completion of the adjudication proceedings, the Additional Commissioner of Customs passed an Order-in-Original dated 28.03.2018, ordering confiscation of the gold jewellery and gold biscuits and imposing a penalty of Rs. 13,23,225/- upon the Petitioner. Aggrieved therefrom, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2021. Thereafter, the Petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Customs Act. The Revision Application was also dismissed by the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) vide order dated 20.09.2022. 9. Challenging the aforesaid revisional order, as well as the concurrent fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Contentions of the Respondents 11.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that although the Petitioner filed an application before the learned CMM on 24.10.2013 seeking preservation of the CCTV footage, no immediate direction for its preservation was passed. Instead, notice was issued to the Government Counsel for 08.11.2013. Vide order dated 04.04.2014, the learned CMM directed preservation of the CCTV footage. By that time, the footage relating to 11.10.2013 had already been automatically erased upon expiry of the prescribed retention period. It was further submitted that no request had been received from any investigating or concerned agency during the relevant period requiring preservation of the CCTV footage. 11.2. It was further submitted that the Petitioner's retraction of his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act is wholly unreliable. The retraction was made only after the Petitioner had been released on bail and was, therefore, a clear afterthought. It was emphasized that the statement recorded on 12.10.2013 runs into eleven (11) pages, each page whereof bears the Petitioner's signatures as well as the signatures of the concern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Petitioner had been residing and working in the Gulf countries for a considerable period of time. He disclosed that he had initially worked in Saudi Arabia and, thereafter, in Dubai, where he was engaged in the business of auto parts in association with a local businessman. He further stated that he was earning approximately Rs.1.5 lakhs per month and was an income-tax assessee in India. These facts unmistakably demonstrate that the Petitioner was an experienced international traveller who was well acquainted with the customs formalities applicable to passengers arriving in India. The aforesaid circumstances lend further support to the conclusion that the Petitioner was fully aware of his obligation to declare dutiable goods before the Customs authorities upon his arrival in India. 17. In these circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the concurrent finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Revisional Authority that the Petitioner's plea of having been intercepted before he could make the requisite declaration is not borne out from the record. The finding is based upon contemporaneous documentary evidence, includi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms Act was not voluntary and, therefore, could not have been relied upon by the authorities below. This submission also deserves to be rejected. 22. A perusal of the statement recorded on 12.10.2013 reveals that it is an elaborate statement extending over eleven (11) pages. Every page thereof bears the signatures of the Petitioner as well as the concerned Customs officer, while the concluding page has been signed by the Petitioner both in English and in Hindi. The statement contains detailed particulars regarding the Petitioner's family, his employment history spanning several decades, including his employment in Saudi Arabia, his stay in India and his subsequent business activities in Dubai, his bank account maintained there, as well as his office address. It also contains a detailed narration regarding the purchase of the gold articles, his frequent travels to India and the manner in which the gold jewellery and gold biscuits were carried by him. The nature and extent of the disclosures made therein do not indicate that it was a mechanical or perfunctory statement. 23. Equally significant is the fact that the aforesaid statement came to be retracted by the Petitione....