Madras HC Sends Passenger’s ₹56.38-Lakh Gold Confiscation Challenge Back For Merits Review, Condoning 37-Day Delay As CESTAT Cannot Hear Baggage Appeals

On 6 January 2020, customs officers intercepted the appellant at Trichy Airport and seized gold jewellery valued at ₹56,38,249 for non-declaration.

The adjudicating authority ordered absolute confiscation, imposed a penalty of ₹25,00,000, and appropriated ₹1,00,000 in cash security.

The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dismissed her appeal on 28 March 2023.

The appellant’s revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, was filed 37 days late and was rejected by the Revisional Authority on limitation grounds on 13 December 2024.

The Single Judge subsequently disposed of her writ petition on the basis that she could appeal to CESTAT under Section 129A. She appealed that order.

The proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, bars appeals to CESTAT against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A relating to goods imported or exported as baggage; the judgment identifies Section 129DD as the revisional remedy for such orders.

Under Section 129DD(2), a revision application must ordinarily be filed within three months, but the Revisional Authority may allow filing within a further three months if satisfied that sufficient cause prevented timely filing.

The Court also applied the principle that, where substantial justice and technical considerations conflict, substantial justice should be preferred.

The subject matter was gold jewellery seized from the appellant as passenger baggage. The statutory bar therefore excluded CESTAT’s jurisdiction, making the Single Judge’s direction to pursue an appeal before that Tribunal legally unsustainable.

The 37-day delay fell within the additional three-month period in which Section 129DD(2) permits condonation.

Given the appellant’s explanation of health reasons and the property and penalty at stake, the Revisional Authority should not have rejected the revision at the threshold without considering the matter on its merits.

It quashed the Revisional Authority’s order dated 13 December 2024, condoned the 37-day delay, and remitted the revision for fresh consideration on the merits.

The Revisional Authority was directed to afford the appellant a personal hearing and decide the matter within three months of receiving the judgment. No costs were awarded.