Page 205 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] RAJU SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA 251

tion, thereof, on payment of redemption fine of ` 50,000/- within one month.
Individual penalties of ` 25,000/- each were also imposed on the petitioners.
8. The Revenue appealed, against the aforesaid Order-in-Original dat-
ed 2nd August, 2016, of the AC, to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
(hereinafter referred to as “the Commissioner (Appeals)”). The only issue
pressed by the Revenue, before the Commissioner (Appeals), was that the AC
ought not to have allowed release of the Indian currency to the petitioners on
payment of redemption fine and penalty. The contention of the Revenue has
been recorded, thus, in the aforesaid Order-in-Appeal :
“The Appellant Department has contended that the pax/Respondent-1 had
unambiguously stated and admitted in his voluntary statement that the
impugned Indian currency recovered from his possession was given to him
by Respondent-2 with a direction to carry it to Dubai hence Respondent-1
was not the owner of the currency but carrier of the currency on the direc-
tion of the Respondent-2. Hence, the Respondent-1 is not the owner of the
Indian currency and hence, the offer of redemption of seized currency was
not warranted in the impugned order.”
9. Vide Order-in-Appeal No. CC (A) CUS/D-I/Airport/355/2018, dat-
ed 12th September, 2018, the aforesaid appeal of the revenue was dismissed by
the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that, even in the
case of prohibited goods, redemption could be permitted under Section 125 of
the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) opined that no occasion arose for
interference with the discretion exercised by the AC in allowing redemption of
the currency seized from Petitioner No. 1. Apropos another submission, ad-
vanced before him, to the effect that Petitioner No. 1 was only a carrier of the
currency, and not the owner thereof, and redemption could be allowed only to
the owner of the seized goods, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that, as Peti-
tioner No. 2 had been traced and was present before him, redemption of the cur-
rency could be given to Petitioner No. 2.
10. The matter was carried further by the Revenue by way of Revision
Application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act before the Revisionary Au-
thority.
11. Vide the impugned order dated 21st August, 2019, the Revisionary
Authority allowed the Revision Application of the revenue and set aside the
Order-in-Appeal dated 12th September, 2018 (supra), of the Commissioner (Ap-
peals). The Revisionary Authority noted the only contention, as advanced before
him by the Revenue, as being that redemption of the currency ought not to have
been granted to Petitioner No. 1, as he was only the carrier of the currency and
not the owner thereof. Observing that, as the owner of the currency, i.e., Petition-
er No. 2 was known, redemption of the currency could not have been granted to
Petitioner No. 1, the Revisionary Authority, vide the impugned order, set aside
the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals), to the extent it permitted
redemption of the currency on payment of redemption fine and penalty.
12. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by
way of the present writ petition.
13. The contentions of the Revenue as advanced before the Revisionary
Authority (as recorded in the impugned order), as well as the decision of the Re-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  221