2010 (8) TMI 418 - HC - Customs

Revision order - non-consideration of the submission - confiscated currencies have been ordered to be released on payment of redemption fine - Held that it was obligatory on the part of the Revisional Authority to consider the submission made by the petitioner. It was open for the Revisional Authority either to accept or reject the submission made by the petitioner for the reasons recorded. The non-consideration of the submission by the Revisional Authority, by itself can be a ground to set aside the impugned order. Non consideration of the contention demonstrates not only non-application of mind but omission to consider relevant submission, which results in miscarriage of justice. - matter remanded back.

Issues:
Challenge to order modifying release of confiscated currencies under CDF as Travelers cheques, Failure of Revisional Authority to consider specific contention raised by petitioner based on judgments of Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority.

Analysis:
The High Court of BOMBAY heard a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order modifying the release of Indian currencies equivalent to 20,000 US$ covered under CDF as Travelers cheques. The order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India modified the original order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 9th October, 1997, directing the release of part of the currencies with a fine and confiscating the rest. The petitioner contended that the Revisional Authority failed to consider a specific contention based on judgments of the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, which had previously ordered the release of confiscated currencies on payment of redemption fine. The respondent's counsel attempted to justify the order but failed to show any consideration of the petitioner's contention by the Revisional Authority.

Upon examining the impugned order, the High Court found that the Revisional Authority had not considered the specific contention raised by the petitioner, which was a crucial aspect of the case. The Court emphasized that it was the duty of the Revisional Authority to address the submissions made by the petitioner and either accept or reject them with proper reasoning. The failure to consider the petitioner's contention amounted to a miscarriage of justice and demonstrated a lack of application of mind. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Revisional Authority for a fresh consideration, specifically directing them to review the issue of releasing the entire foreign currencies on payment of redemption fine.

In the final decision, the High Court made the rule absolute in terms of setting aside the impugned order, with no order as to costs. The Court also imposed a timeframe of 3 months for the Revisional Authority to decide the remanded proceeding expeditiously from the date of receipt of the order. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering all relevant contentions raised by parties to ensure a fair and just decision-making process in matters of customs confiscation and release of currencies.

← Previous Next →