Ubaid Khan v. Union of India & Ors.

What happened

The petitioner, an Indian passport holder, arrived at Delhi airport from Dubai on 4 February 2019 and was intercepted after crossing the green channel. He admitted that he had hidden two gold bars of 1,000 grams each, valued at ₹61,09,704, behind a false wall in a gents' toilet. In his statements under section 108 he said that the gold belonged to a person in Dubai who had asked him to deliver it, for ₹30,000, and he produced an invoice of purchase during adjudication. By an Order-in-Original of 6 March 2020 the Additional Commissioner confiscated the gold under section 111 with an option to redeem on a fine of ₹12 lakh and a penalty of ₹12 lakh under sections 112 and 114AA, holding that the gold belonged to the petitioner. On 18 July 2022 the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Department's appeal and reduced the fine and penalty to ₹6,10,000 each. The Department filed a revision under section 129DD on 25 January 2023, and by an order of 14 July 2025 the revisional authority remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication, after hearing the petitioner on 20 and 23 May 2025. The petitioner argued that the revision was filed beyond the three months in section 129DD(2) and the further three months that can be condoned, since the appellate order was dispatched on 22 July 2022, that section 129DD gives no power of remand, unlike section 129B, and that no notice was given as section 129DD(5) requires.

Questions before the court

• Could the revisional authority remand the matter for fresh adjudication, was a notice under section 129DD(5) needed, and was the revision time-barred?

Why the court ruled this way

The Court held that section 129DD empowers the revisional authority to annul or modify the order of the appellate authority, that an order of remand necessarily annuls the order under challenge, and that there is no express bar on remand in section 129DD, as the Supreme Court said in Umosh Dhaimode; section 129B concerns the Tribunal's powers, and MIL India Ltd. was distinguished because in that case the power of remand was taken away by an express amendment (paragraphs 7–8). The revisional authority considered the legality and propriety of the earlier orders on the record, and was within the scope of its revisional jurisdiction, because the invoice relied on to discharge the burden under section 123 was doubtful, as it did not bear the petitioner's passport number and he was not in Dubai on the date of purchase (paragraphs 9–14). Section 129DD(5) requires a notice only where the revisional authority proposes to enhance a penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or to confiscate goods of greater value; this was not such a case, and in any event the petitioner was heard on 20 and 23 May 2025 (paragraph 15). On limitation, there was no material that the revision was filed beyond the permissible period from the date of communication of the appellate order to the Department; Singh Enterprises was accepted to the extent that the period cannot be extended under section 5 of the Limitation Act, but the date of communication was not established, the question was a mixed one of law and fact, and it had not been raised before the revisional authority (paragraphs 16–17).

Controlling point

The revisional authority under section 129DD may remand for fresh adjudication without a show cause notice under section 129DD(5), which applies only to enhancement of fine or penalty or to confiscation of goods of greater value, and a limitation objection must be pleaded and supported by evidence of the date of communication.

Order and next steps

The Court found no ground for interference and dismissed the writ petition, disposing of the pending applications. The revisional authority's direction for fresh adjudication, after an opportunity to the petitioner to establish his case in accordance with law, stands.

Practical implications

A passenger found with gold who relies on an invoice should expect the invoice to be tested on the burden of proof under section 123, and one who wishes to object that a revision is out of time should raise the point before the revisional authority with proof of when the order was communicated to the Department.

Limits of this ruling

• The Court did not decide whether the gold belonged to the petitioner or whether redemption should be allowed, which are for the adjudicating authority on remand.