IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.40 of 2011 Sheoji Pd. Gupta Son of late Bishun Sah, proprietor James Jwellers, Sahebganj, Chhapra, District- Saran at present Residing C/o Sanjeev Kumar Mahaseth, J.D. Construction, Surbhi Daba Ke Samanei, S.P. Verma Road, Patna, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna ................... Petitioner Versus 1.The Union Of India through Commissioner, Customs Eastern Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna 2. The Commissioner Customs, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, P.S. Kotwali, Patna. 3. The Joint Commissioner, Customs, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, P.S. Kotwali, Patna. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Customs, Customs House, Indio and Nepal Border, Muzaffarpur 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Customs, Customs House, Raxaul, East Champaran. 6. The Assistant Collector, Customs, Land Custom Station, Raxaul, East Champaran. 7. The Commissioner Appeals, Customs and Excise, Revenue Building, Patna. 8. The Custom Inspector-cum- Seizure officer, Land Custom Station, Raxaul, East Champaran....Opp. Parties. ------- 4 24-8-2011 Heard the petitioner who appears in person and learned counsel for the respondents. This review application has been preferred seeking review of order dated 24-9-2010 whereby Misc.Appeal No. 243/2010 preferred by the 2 petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has also filed limitation petition bearing I.A. No. 914 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in preferring this review. On hearing the parties and perusal of the limitation application, the delay in preferring this review application is condoned. The I.A. stands allowed. On merits the petitioner has made an attempt to take this Court to various letters written by him to the Customs Authorities which have been annexed in order to show that he was willing to cooperate in the investigation. No doubt the letters annexed as annexures10,11 and 12 show that he raised various grievances before the Customs Authority but from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of authority it is evident that he avoided to appear during investigation and also before the authority after interrogation was recorded in part under section 108 3 of the Custom Act. That statement is annexed as annexure-A series to the counter-affidavit. The appeal in which the order under review was passed was preferred by the petitioner under section 130 of the Custom Act against appellate order dated 9-11-2009 passed by the Customs Exchange Service Tax Tribunal, Calcutta. The order under review shows that this Court could not find error in the said order so as to warrant interference. Learned counsel for the respondent authority has rightly submitted that in exercise of appellate power under section 130 of the Customs Act , this Court should not permit the petitioner to agitate issues of fact which have been already decided by the authorities. It is worthwhile to observe that certain petitions filed by the petitioner in Criminal Court as well as in Civil Court show that relating to the incident in question the petitioner had preferred 4 criminal as well as civil cases but without success. Having considered the facts and circumstances, we do not find any good reason to exercise our power of review. The review application is dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)