Writ Court Won’t Re-Appreciate Evidence Unless Findings Are Perverse Or Suffer From Manifest Illegality: Delhi High Court

"Interference is warranted only where the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from manifest illegality resulting in failure of justice. None of these contingencies arise in the facts of the present case." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 15, 2026, held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to re-appreciate evidence or substitute conclusions reached by statutory authorities unless such findings are perverse.

A bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain observed that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Adjudicating Authority, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), and the Revisional Authority do not warrant interference when supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence.

The Petitioner, an Indian resident of Mumbai, was intercepted at Indira Gandhi International Airport upon his arrival from Dubai in October 2013. Customs officials recovered over 2,700 grams of gold jewellery and biscuits from his baggage, which had not been declared in the Customs Declaration Form. Following adjudication and subsequent appeals, the Petitioner’s gold was confiscated and a penalty was imposed, leading him to challenge the Revisional Authority's dismissal of his application.

The primary question before the Court was whether it should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the Petitioner's attempt to smuggle gold without declaration. The Court also examined whether a retracted statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act remains reliable and if the non-preservation of CCTV footage prejudiced the defense.

Scope Of Judicial Review Under Article 226

The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction under Article 226 is essentially one of judicial review rather than an appellate one. It noted that the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority to re-evaluate the evidence or replace plausible conclusions arrived at by statutory bodies with its own views.

"This Court does not sit as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own conclusions for the plausible conclusions arrived at by the statutory authorities."

Interception After Green Channel And False Declaration

The Petitioner contended that he was intercepted at the aerobridge before he could reach the Red Channel to make a declaration. However, the Court found this to be a "bald assertion" unsupported by the record, noting that the Respondent Department consistently maintained he was caught after crossing the Green Channel. The Court highlighted that the Petitioner’s own Customs Declaration Form recorded ‘Nil’ for dutiable goods.

Court Rejects Plea Of Interception At Aerobridge

The Bench observed that the Petitioner was an experienced international traveler who had undertaken twenty-one trips to India in a single year. Given his residency and business activities in the Gulf, the Court concluded he was well-acquainted with customs formalities and was fully aware of his obligation to declare the gold.

Reliability Of Statement Under Section 108 Of Customs Act

Addressing the challenge to the Petitioner’s statement recorded during the investigation, the Court noted that it was an elaborate eleven-page document signed on every page. The statement contained specific details about the Petitioner’s family, employment history, and the manner of purchasing and concealing the gold, which indicated it was not perfunctory.

Retraction Treated As An Afterthought

The Court found that the statement was retracted only after the Petitioner was released on bail, reinforcing the view of the authorities below that the retraction was an afterthought. The evidentiary value of the statement was further bolstered by the contemporaneous Panchnama, which was attested by independent witnesses and signed by the Petitioner.

"The nature and extent of the disclosures made therein do not indicate that it was a mechanical or perfunctory statement."

Non-Preservation Of CCTV Footage Not Fatal To Case

The Petitioner argued that the erasure of CCTV footage caused serious prejudice as it would have proven his location of interception. The Court noted that while an application for preservation was filed, the judicial order for the same was passed seven months later, by which time the footage had been automatically erased in the ordinary course by the CISF.

Absence Of CCTV Does Not Dislodge Documentary Evidence

The Bench held that the mere non-availability of CCTV footage cannot justify accepting the Petitioner’s version over documented facts. It noted that the Petitioner failed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice or provide independent material to substantiate his claims despite being granted multiple opportunities for a personal hearing.

The Court concluded that the findings of the authorities were founded upon relevant evidence and did not suffer from jurisdictional errors or manifest illegality. Finding no ground to interfere with the concurrent orders, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition as being devoid of merit.

Date of Decision: July 15, 2026