Abdul Samad's attempt to challenge concurrent findings in gold smuggling case rejected; writ jurisdiction limitations emphasized.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Abdul Samad, a Mumbai resident, challenging the confiscation of gold jewellery and biscuits by Customs authorities. The judgment, delivered by the bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain, upheld the concurrent findings of the Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), and the Revisional Authority, affirming that Samad attempted to import substantial quantities of gold without mandatory declaration.
The case dates back to October 11, 2013, when Samad arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport from Dubai and was intercepted after crossing the Green Channel. Customs officials recovered 477 gold chains and two gold biscuits from his baggage, which he failed to declare, as recorded in his Customs Declaration Form that stated 'Nil' for dutiable goods.
Despite retracting his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, Samad contended that he was intercepted before he could declare the goods in the Red Channel. However, the High Court found no evidence supporting this claim, especially in light of the contemporaneous documentary evidence and Samad's frequent international travels indicating familiarity with customs procedures.
The judgment also addressed the non-preservation of CCTV footage, which Samad argued could have proven his interception before reaching the Red Channel. The court noted that the footage was erased automatically due to the lapse of the retention period before preservation orders were issued.
Emphasizing the limitations of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court reiterated that it does not serve as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence or substitute findings of statutory authorities unless they are perverse, arbitrary, or illegal. The bench concluded that the findings were based on relevant evidence, were neither perverse nor arbitrary, and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Bottom line:-
Customs Law - Concurrent findings of authorities upheld - Attempt to import gold jewellery and gold biscuits without mandatory declaration before Customs authorities - Statement under Section 108 of Customs Act, though retracted, deemed voluntary and credible - Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or illegal.
Statutory provision(s): Customs Act, 1962 Sections 108, 129D; Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Abdul Samad v. Commissioner of Customs, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2941066
