When appellate authorities issue an order in favor of a passenger and the Revenue files a revision without notifying the passenger or pursuing the matter, the court may direct the implementation of the appellate order to prevent prejudice and undue delay.

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of the two gold kadas of the Petitioner, collectively weighing 205 grams seized by the Customs Department vide Detention Receipt bearing No. DR/INDEL4/19.11.2022/000860 dated 19th November, 2022. The Petitioner further seeks implementation of the Order-in-Appeal dated 25th June 2024.

3. The Petitioner had travelled from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to Delhi on 19th November 2022. Upon arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, the Petitioner was intercepted by the concerned officials of the Customs Department and two gold kadas which were worn by the Petitioner were seized.

4. The pre-printed Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) waiver was obtained from the Petitioner and even the personal hearing, in terms thereof, was waived. The appraisal of the two gold kadas were conducted and the Order-in-Original was passed on 23rd January 2024. In the Order-in-Original, the following directions were issued:

“ORDER

I. I deny the 'Free Allowance if any, admissible to the Pax Mushlina for not declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted her and recovered the detained goods from her;

II. I declare the passenger, Mushlina an "ineligible Passenger" for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended);

III. I order absolute confiscation of the above said "Two gold bangles having purity 995, weight 205 grams, valued at Rs. 10,06,181/-* recovered from the Pax Mushlina and detained vide DR No. DR/INDEL4/19.11.2022/000860 Dated 19.11.2022 under section 111(d): 1110,111(0) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962;

IV. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) on the Pax Mushlina under Section 112(a) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.”

5. As can be seen from the above, the two gold kadas were absolutely confiscated by the Adjudicating Authority. The Petitioner thereafter, filed an appeal against the said Order-in-Original. In the appeal, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner were heard. However, the Customs Department failed to appear before the Appellate Authority and the following Order-in-Appeal was passed:

“6.0 In light of discussions and findings as above, I allow the appeal partially OIO No 1168/000860/19.1120221WH/2023-24 dated 23-01-2024 and order that the impugned goods, Two gold bangles having purity 995, weighing 205 grams, valued at Rs. 10,06,181/- be released after payment of redemption fine in total of Rs. 100,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with applicable duty. The penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 is upheld to Rs. 100,000/-. The Appeal is disposed with such modifications and consequential relief as above.”

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said Order-in-Appeal has not been given effect to. As per the above Order-in-Appeal, the Petitioner has been permitted to redeem the goods subject payment of redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000/- along with applicable duty and penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-

7. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the appellate proceedings, the Customs Department usually does not appear as is seen in the present case. In addition, no notice has been received by the Petitioner for filing of the revision.

8. Mr. Vishal Chadha, ld. SSC for the Respondent submits that the revision application has been filed on 10th Octob