The central legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of fact cannot be revisited unless they suffer from manifest perversity, and the court's decision was based on the positive findings of fact by the learned Tribunal regarding the identity of the imported jewellery with the exported jewellery.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J.

REVIEW PET. 117/2020 (filed by respondent) & CM APPL. 20797/2022

1. This order disposes of Review Petition 117/2020, preferred by the respondent, seeking review of the judgment dated 1st June 2020, whereby we had disposed of CUSAA 229/2019.

2. The circumstances in which this Review Petition came to be filed have a bearing on its fate; ergo, it would be appropriate to chart the course of proceedings, till its filing, albeit briefly.

3. Gold, imported into India by the respondent, was seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), in part from the workshop/factory premises of the respondent and in part from the Airport, after the gold had crossed the Customs barrier. The respondent disputes the legitimacy of the seizure, contending that the gold had been earlier exported by the respondent and was being re-imported into India within a year of export, and was entitled, therefore, to complete duty exemption under S. No. 5 of Notification 45/2017-Cus dated 30th June 2017, as further clarified by CBIC Circulars Nos 21/2019-Cus dated 24th July 2019 and 108/27/2019-GST dated 18th July 2019. A Show Cause Notice came to be issued by the DRI to the respondent on 26th September 2019, which is presently pending adjudication.

4. In the meanwhile, the respondent applied for provisional release of the seized gold, under Section 110A^{1[110-A. Provisional release of goods, documents and things seized or bank account provisionally attached pending adjudication.--Any goods, documents or things seized or bank account provisionally attached under Section 110, may, pending the order of the adjudicating authority, be released to the owner or the bank account holder on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require.]} of the Customs Act, 1962. The Additional Director General (ADG), DRI, rejected the request vide order dated 4th October 2019. The respondent appealed to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) (hereinafter "the learned Tribunal"). Returning a positive finding of fact that the gold imported had been verified and found to tally with the gold earlier exported, the learned Tribunal, vide Final Order dated 13th November 2019, directed provisional release of the gold, on terms fixed by it. CUSAA 229/2019, in which the present Review Petition has come to be filed, was preferred by the DRI against the said Final Order of the learned Tribunal, under Section 130(1)^{2[130. Appeal to High Court.--
(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.]}
of the Customs Act.

5. By our judgment dated 1st June 2020 - under review - we disposed of CUSAA 229/2019. We upheld the decision of the learned Tribunal directing release of the gold seized from the factory/warehouse of the respondent as well as 25400.06 grams gold jewellery covered by Bill of Entry (B/E) No. 107190 dated 26th February 2019, but enhanced the conditions of release to furnishing of a bond covering the entire value of the gold along with an irrevocable Bank Guarantee (B/G) for Rs.10 crores. However, we set aside the direction of the learned Tribunal permitting release of the consignment of 25299.68 grams gold jewellery also seized at the Airport, on the reasoning that the B/E filed in respect of the said consignment was not signed by the respondent or the Customs clerk.

6. The appellant DRI appealed, against our judgment, to the Supreme Court, vide SLP (C) 10472/2020, to the extent we had directed release of the gold seized from the factory/warehouse of the respondent as well as 25400.06 grams gol