COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) versus VIJAY DASHARATH PATEL

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 738 · Decided: 08-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 
~ -
\I 
VIJA Y DASHARA TH PATEL 
MARCH 8, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962-ss.130(£), 123 and 11 J(D): 
c 
Gold bars of foreign origin,Confiscation orders passed by Commissioner 
of Customs- Set aside by Tribunal-Appeal by Revenue u/s. i'30(E)-Dismissal 
of, by High Court on ground that no substantial question of law arose for 
its consideration-Propriety of-Held, not proper-Substantial question of 
law varies from case to case-It arises when material and relevant facts have 
been ignored and legal principles have not been applied in appreciation of 
D evidence-On facts, the Tribunal did not consider the entire evidence on 
record and also erred in law in relying upon the prevailing trade practices 
in gold/bullion market-Hence, a substantial question of law did arise for .,., .._ 
consideration of the High Court. 
Respondents were detained for carrying gold biscuits of foreign origin. 
E The Commissioner of Customs held that Respondents had not discharged their 
burden of proof in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 to prove 
that the gold bars were not smuggled and accordingly directed that the gold 
bars be confiscated u/s 111 (D) of the Customs Act and penalties be imposed 
on the Respondents. Appeals before Tribunal were dismissed. High Court 
F 
directed the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh. On re-wnsideration, the 
Tribunal held that Respondents had produced sufficient documentary evidence 
:ir 
to prove that they had acquired the gold bars legally and accordingly, the 
confiscation orders and the penalties imposed were set aside. Revenue filed 
appeal before High Court u/s 130(E) of the Customs Act, but the High Court. 
declined to interfere on the premise that no substantial question of law arose 
G for its consideration. Hence the present appeals. 
r 
..... 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 130E of the Customs Act, as it stood then, provided 
H 
738 
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)1·. VI.IA Y DASHARATH PATEL 
739 
.• for an appeal from an order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, save A 
-* 
and except those specifically mentioned therein, only in the event a satisfaction 
is arrived at by the High Court that the same involves a substantial question 
of law. The High Court's jurisdiction in this behalf is limited. What would be 
substantial question oflaw, however, would vary from case to case. 
!Paras 20 and 22! [750-D, Fl B 
1.2. Moreover, although, a finding of fact can be interfered with when it 
is perverse, but, it is also trite that where the courts below have ignored the 
weight of preponderating circumstances and allowed the judgment to be 
influenced by inconsequential matters, the High Court would be justified in 
considering the matter and in coming to its own independent conclusion. 
!Para 23] 1750-G] c 
1.3. The High Court shall also be entitled to opine that a substantial 
question of law arises for its consideration when material and relevant facts 
have been ignored and legal principles have not been applied in appreciating 
the evidence. Arriving at a decision, upon taking into consideration irrelevant D 
factors, would also give rise to a substantial question of law. It may, however, 
be different that only on the same set of facts the higher court takes a different 
~ 
"""" 
view. Even in a case where evidence is misread, the High Court would have 
power to interfere. !Paras 24 and 25] 1750-H; 751-A, CI 
Madan Lal v. Mst. Gopi & Anr., AIR (1980) SC 1754; Collector of E 
Customs, Bombay v. Swastic Woollens (P) ltd. & Ors., 11988! Supp. SCC 796; 
Metroark Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta, 120041 12 SCC 
505; West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC ltd., 120021 8 
SCC 715 and Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Bureau Veritas & Ors., 
120051 3 sec 265, relied on. 
F 
..,,_ 
Mis. Dutta Cycle Stores & Ors. v. Gita Devi Sultania & Ors., 1199011 
j 
sec 586, referred to. 
2. I. In the present case, the Commissioner of Customs, inter alia, has 
gone into the entire materials brought on records by the parties. It has taken G 
into consideration a number of circumstances in arriving at its findings. The 
Tribunal, however, inter alia, proceeded on the basis that one of the carriers 
.... 
-f 
had been let off but also the purported normal fashion of transport of gold 
bars for which no evidence was brought on records. !Para 2711715-F! 
2.2. It was conte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.