Smt.Sabarnisha vs The Additional Commissioner of Customs
- Court
- Madras High Court
WA(MD) No. 3104 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
WA(MD) No. 3104 of 2025
CNR:{HCMD010589322025}
and
CMP(MD)No.18424 of 2025
Smt.Sabarnisha
W/o. Zulfikar Ali Bin Buruhan Deen, No.4/100A,
Muhamadhiya Street, Ramanathapuram District,
Tamil Nadu.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
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,
th
Hudco Vishala Building, B Wing, 6 Floor,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent, against
the order dated 27.02.2025 passed in W.P.(MD).No.3637 of 2025.
For Appellant(s) :Mr.B.Satish Sundar
For Respondent(s) :Mr.R.Gowrishankar Senior Standing
__________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:51:35 pm )
WA(MD) No. 3104 of 2025
Counsel for R1 & R2
Mr.A.P.Rajasimman for R3
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
__________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:51:35 pm )
WA(MD) No. 3104 of 2025
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
__________
Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:51:35 pm )
WA(MD) No. 3104 of 2025
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
__________
Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:51:35 pm )
WA(MD) No. 3104 of 2025
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
__________
Page 5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:51:35 pm )
WA(MD) No. 3104 of 2025
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
__________
Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:51:35 pm )
WA(MD) No. 3104 of 2025
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.
__________
Page 7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:51:35 pm )
WA(MD) No. 3104 of 2025
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
__________
Page 8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:51:35 pm )
WA(MD) No. 3104 of 2025
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
__________
Page 9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:51:35 pm )
WA(MD) No. 3104 of 2025
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,
th
Hudco Vishala Building, B Wing, 6 Floor,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
__________
Page 10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:51:35 pm )
WA(MD) No. 3104 of 2025
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, C.J.
AND
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
SASI/bala
WA(MD)No.3104 of 2025
13-11-2026
__________
Page 11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:51:35 pm )