Court clarifies jurisdiction under Customs Act, 1962, holding that appeals against confiscation of conveyances and currency must be filed before Customs and Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), not under Section 129DD revision by Central Government.
In a significant judgment dated October 1, 2026, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice C. Saravanan, clarified the proper forum for challenging confiscation orders under the Customs Act, 1962, particularly in cases involving the confiscation of vehicles and Indian currency alleged to be connected with smuggling activities.
The petitioner, S. Michael Kennadi, had his Maruti Suzuki Wagon R and Indian currency amounting to Rs. 5,35,000 confiscated by Customs authorities under Sections 115(2) and 121 of the Customs Act, 1962, respectively. Additionally, a penalty was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Act. The vehicle was seized on the grounds that it was to be used for carrying smuggled gold, and the currency was allegedly intended to finance smuggling operations.
Following the adjudication and appeal processes within the Customs Department, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 129DD of the Customs Act before the Central Government's Revision Authority challenging these orders. The Revision Authority rejected the revision on the ground that such revisions were not maintainable under Section 129DD, holding that the proper remedy lay by way of appeal before the Customs and Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 129A.
The petitioner then approached the High Court through a writ petition contending that the Revision Authority erred in rejecting the revision application. The Court examined the scope of Sections 129A and 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. It noted that Section 129A provides for appeals to CESTAT against various orders passed by Customs authorities but excludes jurisdiction for appeals relating to goods imported or exported as baggage, or certain drawback matters, as per the first proviso to Section 129A(1).
The Court emphasized that the confiscated items in this case - the vehicle, Indian currency, and mobile phones - were not imported or exported as baggage. The vehicle was domestically registered and seized outside the Customs area, and the currency was Indian legal tender found inside the vehicle. Hence, the matter did not fall within the categories excluded from CESTAT's jurisdiction under the first proviso of Section 129A.
The Court accordingly held that the appeal against the appellate order lay before CESTAT under Section 129A and not by revision under Section 129DD before the Central Government. Consequently, the Revision Authority rightly dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable.
While dismissing the writ petition challenging this decision, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before CESTAT within thirty days from the receipt of the judgment copy. The Court directed the Tribunal to consider the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to limitation if filed within the stipulated time.
This ruling provides crucial guidance on the forum for challenging confiscation orders involving conveyances and currency under the Customs Act, clarifying that revision before the Central Government is not the remedy in such cases, and such appeals must be pursued before CESTAT.
Bottom Line:
Customs Act, 1962 - Maintainability of appeal/revision - Where challenge was to confiscation of vehicle under Section 115(2), confiscation of Indian currency under Section 121, and penalty under Section 112(b), and not to goods imported or exported as baggage, remedy lies before CESTAT under Section 129A and not by revision before Central Government under Section 129DD.
Statutory provision(s):
Customs Act, 1962 Sections 112(b), 115(2), 121, 125, 128, 129A, 129DD
