2023 (6) TMI 1202 - HC - Customs

Import of Accompanied Baggage - Carrying foreign currency beyond permissible limit - Rejection of revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 - petitioner had failed to substantiate his claim by submitting any evidence in support of the grounds in appeal or not - petitioner was put to notice as per the provisions of Section 102 of the Customs Act or not - HELD THAT - The petition deserves to be dismissed as this is a case of concurrent findings of all the authorities below, and that the findings of the facts ought not to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Having perused the record, none of the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner are accepted. The jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere in the impugned orders would be very limited namely to examine whether there is any patent perversity and illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below. This Court in exercise of such jurisdiction would not re-appreciate evidence to come to a conclusion different from what has been arrived at by the authorities on appreciation of facts and/or on consideration of materials. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The principal challenge is to an order dated 29 November, 2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner & Ex-officio Additional Secretary to Government of India, rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The order dated 08 October, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III, dismissing the petitioner's appeal was confirmed.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was intercepted at the airport and found carrying a substantial amount of foreign currency. The Customs officers conducted a detailed examination and found the petitioner to be carrying foreign currency equivalent to Indian currency valued at Rs. 33,06,667.60. The petitioner claimed to be an NRI with business interests abroad, but his past involvement in cases of currency seizure raised suspicion.

Contentions and Findings:
1. The petitioner challenged the findings of all authorities below, arguing that observations made by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a bail application were not conclusive evidence. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Customs Act procedures were followed independently of the bail application.
2. The petitioner claimed he was not informed of his right under Section 102 of the Customs Act, but the court found this contention untenable based on the show cause notice.
3. The court noted that the revisional authority correctly labeled the petitioner as a habitual offender, a finding not challenged by the petitioner.
4. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit, as there was no patent perversity or illegality in the orders of the lower authorities. The jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was limited to examining such issues, and the petition was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing that it would not interfere with factual findings unless there was clear illegality. The petition was rejected without costs.