Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter XV — Appeals and Revision

Section 129DD. Revision by Central Government

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Revision by Central Government. —

(1) The Central Government may, on the application of any person aggrieved by any order passed under section 128A, where the order is of the nature referred to in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 129A, annul or modify such order.

Provided that the Central Government may in its discretion, refuse to admit an application in respect of an order where the amount of duty or fine or penalty, determined by such order does not exceed five thousand rupees.

Explanation. — For the purposes of this sub-section, "order passed under section 128A " includes an order passed under that section before the commencement of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1984[Omitted], against which an appeal has not been preferred before such commencement and could have been, if the said section had not come into force, preferred after such commencement, to the Appellate Tribunal.

(1A) The Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, if he is of the opinion that an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128A is not legal or proper, direct the proper officer to make an application on his behalf to the Central Government for revision of such order.

(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall be made within three months from the date of the communication to the applicant of the order against which the application is being made:

Provided that the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months.

(3) An application under sub-section (1)shall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be specified by rules made in this behalf and shall be accompanied by a fee of, -

(a) two hundred rupees, where the amount of duty and interest demanded, fine or penalty levied by an officer of customs in the case to which the application relates is one lakh rupees or less;

(b) one thousand rupees, where the amount of duty and interest demanded, fine or penalty levied by an officer of customs in the case to which the application relates is more than one lakh rupees:

Provided that no such fee shall be payable in the case of an application referred to in sub-section (1A).

(4) The Central Government may, of its own motion, annul or modify any order referred to in sub-section (1).

(5) No order enhancing any penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or confiscating goods of greater value shall be passed under this section, -

(a) in any case in which an order passed under section 128A has enhanced any penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or has confiscated goods of greater value, and

(b) in any other case, unless the person affected by the proposed order has been given notice to show cause against it within one year from the date of the order sought to be annulled or modified.

(6) Where the Central Government is of opinion that any duty of customs has not been levied or has been short-levied, no order levying or enhancing the duty shall be made under this section unless the person affected by the proposed order is given notice to show cause against it within the time limit specified in section 28.

Judgments on Section 129DD

  • S.Michael Kennadi vs The Revision Authority — Madras High Court, 1 Oct 2026. Revision to the Central Government under Section 129DD lies only for the three kinds of cases listed in the first proviso to Section 129A(1): baggage, goods not unloaded at their destination, and drawback.
  • Ubaid Khan vs Union Of India Through The Secretary &… — Delhi High Court, 30 Sep 2026. The revisional authority under Section 129DD can annul an appellate order and remand the case for fresh adjudication; a notice under Section 129DD(5) is needed only when it proposes to enhance a fine, penalty or…
  • Fahim Ahmad vs Commissioner Of Customs — Delhi High Court, 2 Sep 2026. The High Court will not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to adjudicate on disputed questions of fact and law concerning the validity and effect of a purported oral Show Cause…
  • Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. — Delhi High Court, 8 Apr 2025. Where Rule 16 of the Duty Drawback Rules prescribes no period of limitation, the general three-year limitation cannot be presumed to apply by default, especially where there are strong suspicions of fraudulent availment…
  • Vicky Ramchand Asrani vs Mumbai-Air Port — CESTAT, 19 Dec 2024. Illicit import of gold must be deterred, but not by alienation of possession from its owner — where goods are merely restricted and not truly prohibited, absolute confiscation under section 125 fails and the owner is…
  • M/S.G.T.India Private Limited vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Exports) — Madras High Court, 13 Nov 2024. Procedural irregularities in complying with the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 cannot defeat an importer's substantial right to drawback where the goods remained in customs custody,…
  • Mohammad Junaid vs Commissioner Of Customs — Delhi High Court, 2 Sep 2026. In proceedings arising under the Customs Act, 1962, where an efficacious statutory remedy such as revision under Section 129DD is available against an Order-in-Appeal, the High Court in exercise of its discretionary…
  • Yamal Manojbhai Jagada vs Commissioner Of Customs Airport &… — CESTAT, 15 May 2026. Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 no condition can be imposed while offering redemption of confiscated goods — the owner may opt for home consumption on payment of duty, interest, fine and penalty, or for…
  • Titagarh Wagons Limited vs -Patna(Prev) — CESTAT, 20 Nov 2024. An appeal to CESTAT against an order relating to payment of duty drawback is barred by proviso clause (c) to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962; the remedy lies in a revision under Section 129DD before the Central…
  • M/S.South India Corporation… vs The Government Of India — Madras High Court, 9 Mar 2020. Penalty for short landing under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained where adjudication is unduly delayed—the liability cannot be kept alive beyond five years from discharge per Parekh Shipping—or…
  • A-1 Cuisines Private Limited, Through… vs Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance — Bombay High Court, 28 Nov 2018. Transactions at duty free shops located beyond the immigration counter at international airports are deemed to take place beyond the customs frontiers of India, but this benefit does not extend to shops in a domestic…
  • Rochiram And Sons vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. — Supreme Court of India, 24 Apr 2008. Once imported goods found defective are re-exported, the Revenue cannot both refuse refund of duty paid in cash and deny adjustment of duty paid by DEPB debit, since the undue-enrichment principle binds the Revenue as…