The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and upheld the findings of the authorities below unless there is patent perversity and illegality in the orders.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.

By consent of the parties heard finally.

2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, although has number of prayers, the principal challenge as mounted by the petitioner is to an order dated 29 November, 2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner & Ex-officio Additional Secretary to Government of India, by which the revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, has been rejected. By the impugned order, the order dated 08 October, 2013 being an order in appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal, has been confirmed.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are:-

As it was observed that the movements of the petitioner were suspicious, the petitioner was intercepted by the officers of the Customs Air Intelligence Unit at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Sahar, Mumbai on 14 March, 2006. The petitioner declared himself to be a passenger travelling from Mumbai to Doha by Qatar Airways flight No. QR 201. As set out in detail in the show cause notice dated 11 September, 2006, when the petitioner cleared the immigration and customs, the petitioner was taken to the baggage identification area, when he was asked whether he was carrying any contraband, Indian or foreign currency in excess of the equivalent of US $ 4000 or any prohibited goods either on his person or in his baggage. On such question being asked, the petitioner repeatedly stated that he was carrying foreign currency equivalent to US $ 4000 only, as he was an NRI. The Customs Air Intelligence Officers thereafter decided to conduct a detailed examination of the petitioner’s person and his baggage at the designated area.

4. The officers in the presence of panchas informed the petitioner that he had the right under the law to be examined of his person and his baggage before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and also informed him that the Superintendents Shri P. S. Salian and M. C. Shiakh were the gazetted officers. The petitioner consented for the examination/search of his person and baggage to be taken in the presence of the said Superintendents. In the presence of such officers and as set out in detail in paragraphs 3 to 9 of the show cause notice dated 11 September, 2006 issued to the petitioner, on the search of the person of the petitioner as also of his baggage, the petitioner was found to be carrying foreign currency equivalent to Indian currency valued Rs. 33,06,667.60. The said currency was US Dollars, Euros, UAE Dirhams and Saudi Riyals. The amount being recovered from the person of the petitioner was substantial. A statement of the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was also recorded (dated 14 March, 2006) in which the petitioner stated that he was a trader of industrial electronic parts and leather luggages and that his business was totally based in foreign countries mainly Singapore and Hong Kong and he had no business in India. He stated that his family was based in Gujarat and he was an NRI and travelled to various countries in connection with his business of trading. He also stated that he was holding an Indian passport issued at Ahmedabad on 27 February, 2004 which was valid upto 26 February, 2014 and prior thereto, he was holding an Indian passport issued at Kuala Lumpur on 27 April, 1984. He stated that he had lost his passport in Vadodara and hence had got a new passport issued. On being asked on the details as to how he lost his earlier passport, he stated that the passport, which was issued at Kualalumpur, was seized/detained by the Singapore police, as he was involved in a quarrel case in Singapore and while applying for his new passport, he did not mention this fact to the passport authorities. He also stated that he had received foreign currency from Nepal and on being asked whether he de