Court Rules Revisional Authority Under Customs Act, 1962 Can Modify or Annul Appellate Orders and Remand Matter Without Separate Notice When No Penalty Enhancement Is Proposed
In a significant judgment delivered on September 30, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench) dismissed the writ petition filed by Ubaid Khan challenging the revisional order passed under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The case arose after the petitioner was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, carrying two gold bars weighing 2 kilograms concealed in a false wall inside an airport toilet. The petitioner was initially adjudged to have smuggled the gold, resulting in confiscation and imposition of penalties by the adjudicating authority.
Following appeals by both the petitioner and the customs department, the appellate authority reduced the penalty and redemption fine. However, the revisional authority (RA) set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, citing doubts regarding the authenticity of the invoice produced by the petitioner and inconsistencies in his claim of ownership. The RA found that the burden of proof to demonstrate the gold was not smuggled had not been satisfactorily discharged by the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that the RA lacked jurisdiction to remand the matter and argued the revisional application was time-barred. Further, he claimed that the invoice produced during adjudication proved ownership and that the RA had pre-decided the issue, rendering the remand ineffective. The petitioner also argued that the RA failed to issue a separate show-cause notice before remanding the case.
The Delhi High Court rejected these contentions after a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court held that the RA's power under Section 129DD to annul or modify appellate orders inherently includes the authority to remand the matter for fresh adjudication. This power is not expressly barred by the statute, and precedents such as Union of India v. Umosh Dhaimode support this interpretation. The Court clarified that Section 129B, which governs appellate tribunal powers, is inapplicable in this context.
Regarding the limitation period for filing revision, the Court observed that there was no material on record to establish the delay beyond the prescribed three months plus condonable period of three months. The petitioner's failure to raise the limitation issue before the RA further weakened his claim.
The Court emphasized that the RA's role is not to re-appreciate evidence as an appellate authority but to examine whether the appellate order was legal and proper. In this case, doubts about the invoice's authenticity and the petitioner's presence in Dubai on the purchase date justified the remand for fresh adjudication. The burden of proof under Section 123 of the Act lies on the person from whose possession the goods were seized or on the owner claiming the goods, and the petitioner failed to discharge this burden satisfactorily.
Finally, the Court held that Section 129DD(5) requiring a separate show-cause notice applies only when the revisional authority proposes to enhance the penalty or confiscate goods of greater value, which was not the case here. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to be heard before the RA and during the remand proceedings.
Dismissal of the writ petition upholds the revisional authority's decision to remand the case for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, reinforcing the rigorous legal scrutiny applied in cases of suspected smuggling and the importance of proper procedural safeguards.
Bottom Line:
Customs Act, 1962 - Revisional authority under Section 129DD has power to annul or modify appellate order and such power includes power to remand matter for fresh adjudication - Separate notice under Section 129DD(5) is not required where there is no enhancement of penalty, fine or confiscation of goods of greater value - Burden under Section 123 to prove seized gold was not smuggled remains on person from whose possession recovery is linked or person claiming ownership.
Statutory provision(s):
Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 108, 110, 111, 112, 114AA, 123, 125, 128A, 129A, 129B, 129DD
Ubaid Khan v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992064
