Page 207 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] RAJU SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA 253

redemption of the currency could be granted to Petitioner No. 2. In this back-
drop, it is impossible to understand how the Revisionary Authority set aside the
said order, by holding that redemption of the currency could not be granted to
Petitioner No. 1.
16. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that both the petitioners
were before the Revisionary Authority. Even if, for a moment, it were to be as-
sumed that the Revisionary Authority read the orders of the authorities below as
allowing the redemption of the currency to Petitioner No. 1, all that he was re-
quired to do to remedy the situation, was to substitute the said direction by per-
mitting redemption of the currency to Petitioner No. 2. There was no occasion,
whatsoever, for the Revisionary Authority to set aside the Order-in-Appeal,
wholesale, thereby rendering the seized currency irredeemable, even by Petition-
er No. 2.
17. Both the petitioners are before this Court as well. We, in the circum-
stances, queried of Mr. Amit Bansal, Learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for
the Customs authorities, as to why redemption of the currency could not be
granted to Petitioner No. 2. Mr. Amit Bansal, with his customary fairness, did not
object to the suggestion, and candidly conceded that, if the redemption of the
currency was permissible, Petitioner No. 2 could certainly be permitted to re-
deem the currency.
18. At the same time, Mr. Amit Bansal sought to contend, the actual
grievance of the Revenue before the Revisionary Authority, was that the seized
currency was “prohibited”, redemption thereof ought not to have been allowed
at all, and the currency ought to have been absolutely confiscated. This submis-
sion directly flies in the face of Section 125 of the Customs Act whereunder,
while allowing the redemption, in the case of goods which are not prohibited, is
mandatory, even in the case of goods, which are prohibited, it is open to the au-
thorities to allow redemption thereof, though, in such a case, discretion would
vest with the authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals), while rejecting the ap-
peal of the revenue, correctly noted this legal position, and observed that, as the
AC had exercised discretion in favour of allowing redemption of the seized cur-
rency, on payment of redemption fine of ` 50,000/-, no occasion arose to inter-
fere therewith. We are entirely in agreement with the Commissioner (Appeals).
Exercise of discretion, by judicial, or quasi-judicial authorities, merits interfer-
ence only where the exercise is perverse or tainted by patent illegality, or is taint-
ed by oblique motives [Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. UOI - (2017) 7 SCC 221 = 2017
(349) E.L.T. 369 (S.C.)]. No illegality, much less perversity, is discernible in the
decision, of the AC, to allow redemption of the seized currency on payment of
redemption fine of ` 50,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly refused to
interfere with the said decision, and the Revisionary Authority, in an order
which reflects total non-application of mind, chose to reverse the said decision.
19. We are unable to sustain the order of the Revisionary Authority. We
uphold the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the order of the
AC, which stands affirmed thereby. The seized currency shall, therefore, forth-
with be returned to Petitioner No. 2.
20. In view of the above discussions, the present writ petition is al-
lowed in the above terms, with no order as to costs.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  223