[2025:RJ-JP:16325-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Writ Review Petition No. 92/2022 In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12001/2020 Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhagirath Sharma, R/o Flat No. 209, Al Zahida Building Hor Al Anz, Deira, Dubai Through Its Authorised Signatory Yogesh Joshi S/o Om Prakash Joshi R/o House No. 1061, Uniyaro Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Room No. 46, North Block, New Delhi 110001 2. The Principal Commissioner And Additional Secretary, Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Departmemt Of Revenue, 14Th Hudco Vishala Building, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Bhikaji, Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066 3. The Commissioner Of Customs, Jodhpur, Headquaters At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 4. The Deputy Commissioner Of Customs, Terminal-2, Arrival Hall, International Airport, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan with Mr. Mohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Palash Gupta HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 16/04/2025 1. Heard on prayer for review of the order dated 17.02.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12001/2020. [2025:RJ-JP:16325-DB] (2 of 4) [WRW-92/2022] 2. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that while passing the order under review, instead of mentioning “goods”, it has been restricted to “gold” only. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the issue arising for consideration before the Court was whether confiscation of goods which included gold also was just and proper and in accordance with law. While disposing of the petition with certain directions, reference has been made only to confiscation of the “seized gold”, whereas this Court intended that issue of redemption fine in place of confiscation of goods is to be decided afresh. 4. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an error apparent on the face of the record has been committed inasmuch as though fine of Rs.40 lacs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Customs Act’) has been held to be illegal, but it has been reduced only to Rs.30 lacs without consideration of relevant facts and material on record and without taking into consideration that the same was reduced by the Commissioner of appeals. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this review petition is an appeal in disguise and the grounds raised in the petition do not make out a case of an error apparent on the face of the record so as to call for indulgence in these proceedings. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. As far as the first submission is concerned, after going through the order passed earlier on 17.02.2022, we find that the [2025:RJ-JP:16325-DB] (3 of 4) [WRW-92/2022] issue which arose for consideration was whether imposition of fine and confiscation of goods were in accordance with law. This Court considered the issue qua goods which was not only gold, but currency also. However, in the operative part of the order, the word “seized gold” alone has been used. We are of the view that this requires necessary correction. Accordingly, the order under review is modified in the manner that in Clause (ii) of Para No.18 of the order dated 17.02.2022, in place of “seized gold”, it shall be read in substitution as confiscated “seized goods”. 8. So far as second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, we find that the conclusion drawn that the fine of Rs.40 lacs under Section 112 of the Customs Act imposed by the Revisional Authority is reduced to Rs.30 lacs, is based on detailed consideration by this Court in the order under review. This Court dealt with the aspect of imposition of fine under Section 112 of the Customs Act in detail. Invocation of power under Section 112 of the Customs Act was held justified upon examination of the scheme of Section 112 of the Customs Act and various decisions, reference of which has been made in detail in Para Nos.11 to 14 of the order under review. 9. Not only that, this Court has taken into consideration various decisions on the issue. A clear finding has been recorded that the Revisional Authortiy could have restored the order of Adjudicating Authority, but could not have enhanced the penalty over and above what was imposed by the Adjudicating Authority without specific show-cause notice having been issued to the petitioner. On such detailed consideration, it was concluded that the fine of [2025:RJ-JP:16325-DB] (4 of 4) [WRW-92/2022] Rs.40 lacs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, imposed by Revisional Authority is liable to be reduced to Rs.30 lacs. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are more in the nature of grounds of appeal and it is not an error apparent on the face of the record. 10. In the result, the review petition is partly allowed only in the manner and to the extent, as stated herein above. (SUDESH BANSAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ RAJAT/1