WA(MD)/3104/2025 of Smt.Sabarnisha Vs The Additional Commissioner of Customs on 13 November 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE) This intra-court writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 27.02.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.3637 of 2025, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative appellate remedy before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.

2.1. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was intercepted at Trichy Airport on 06.01.2020, and gold jewellery valued at Rs.56,38,249/- was seized from her for non- declaration. Following investigation and issuance of a show-cause notice, the original adjudicating authority passed an order dated 03.09.2020 directing absolute confiscation of the gold jewellery, imposing a penalty of Rs.25,00,000/-, and appropriating a cash security of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2.2. The statutory appeal preferred before the second respondent (Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)) was dismissed on 28.03.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, before the third respondent (Revisional Authority) with a delay of 37 days on account of health issues.

2.3. By Order No.243/24-Cus in F.No. 373/57/B/SZ/2023-RA, dated 13.12.2024, the third respondent rejected the revision application solely on the ground of limitation without entering into the merits of the matter.

2.4. Challenging the said rejection, the appellant filed W.P(MD) No.3637 of 2025, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge directing her to approach CESTAT.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant advanced the following submissions:

(a) The learned Single Judge committed a patent error of law in relegating the Appellant to CESTAT under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. Under the proviso to Section 129A(1), CESTAT is expressly barred from entertaining appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A in respect of goods imported or exported as baggage. In baggage matters, the exclusive statutory remedy lies before the Central Government (Revisional Authority) under Section 129DD. Consequently, the direction to approach CESTAT is contrary to the statutory scheme and leaves the Appellant remediless.

(b) Under the proviso to Section 129DD(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the normal period of limitation for filing a revision is three months, which is extendable by a further period of three months upon showing sufficient cause. The appellant's delay of 37 days fell squarely within the condonable period. The third respondent adopted a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the explanation of "health issues" without affording an opportunity to substantiate the same, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

(c) Gold is a restricted item and not a prohibited item under the Customs Act, 1962. Under Section 125 of the Act, the adjudicating authority is mandated to offer an option of redemption upon payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation. Absolute confiscation of gold worth Rs.56,38,249/- coupled with an onerous penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- and appropriation of Rs.1,00,000/- cash security causes irreparable prejudice. Refusal to examine the revision on merits on a marginal procedural delay defeats substantial justice.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the third respondent supported the orders of the authorities below and contended as follows:

(a) The seizure at Trichy Airport on 06.01.2020 arose out of deliberate non-declaration of gold jewellery worth Rs.56,38,249/-. The orders of confiscation and penalty were passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and no absolute right to redemption can be claimed by the appellant in cases of non-declaration.

(b) The third respondent rightly declined to entertain the revision application as the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for the 37-day delay. Furthermore, as held by the learned Single Judge, the appellant ought to pursue the statutory appellate remedy available under the Act rather than invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. A plain reading of the proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 makes it abundantly clear that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal, in respect of any order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A if such order relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage. Against such orders, the statute provides an exclusive revisional remedy before the Central

Government under Section 129DD of the Act. In the instant case, the subject matter pertains to gold jewellery seized from the appellant as passenger baggage at Trichy Airport. Therefore, CESTAT lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Relegating the appellant to a forum that lacks statutory jurisdiction is legally unsustainable, and on this short ground alone, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge warrants interference.

7. Turning to the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the third respondent, it is undisputed that the revision application under Section 129DD was filed with a delay of 37 days. Under Section 129DD(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, a revision application is required to be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order, and the proviso thereto empowers the Revisional Authority to allow it to be presented within a further period of three months if satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting it within the initial period. Thus, the delay of 37 days was well within the outer condonable limit of three months prescribed under the statute.

8. It is settled law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The appellant had cited health reasons for the marginal delay of 37 days, and her substantive property rights involving gold jewellery valued at Rs.56,38,249/- along with a substantial penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- were at stake. Instead of adopting a hyper-technical approach and dismissing the revision at the threshold on limitation, the third respondent ought to have exercised its discretion liberally so as to adjudicate the contentious issues, including whether the goods are restricted or prohibited and the applicability of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, on their merits.

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order of the third respondent rejecting the revision on the ground of delay. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

(i) This Writ Appeal is allowed, and the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No. 3637 of 2025 is hereby set aside.

(ii) Consequently, the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the third respondent is quashed, and the delay of 37 days in preferring the revision application before the third respondent is condoned.

(iii) The matter is remitted to the file of the third respondent (Revisional Authority) for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

(iv) The third respondent shall afford a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(v) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, C.J.) (P.VELMURUGAN J.) 13-11-2026 Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SASI/bala To

1. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, No.1, William Road, Cantonment, Trichy - 625 001.

2. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Custom House, No.1, William Road, Cantonment, Trichy - 625 001.

3. The Additional Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, 14, Hudco Vishala Building, B Wing, 6th Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, C.J. AND P.VELMURUGAN, J. SASI/bala WA(MD)No.3104 of 2025 13-11-2026