Judgment :- Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. This common order will dispose of the two writ petitions filed by wife and husband, namely, Jaspal Walia and Mohinder Singh Walia. The two petitioners came back to India from London on 22nd September, 1990 and on inquiry by the Customs Officers had declared that they were not carrying dutiable goods except imported goods within the permissible limit. They were permitted to proceed towards the exit gate, where they were intercepted. Jaspal Walia was found to be wearing 8 gold bangles and two necklaces, weighing 195 gms. Mohinder Singh Walia was found to be wearing a gold “Kara” weighing 55 gms. These were seized vide panchnamas dated 22nd September, 1990. At this stage, we may note that child of the two petitioners was also found to be wearing gold articles. 2. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued and adjudication orders dated 7th February, 1992 and 24th July, 1991were passed holding that the petitioners had smuggled gold into India which was liable to be confiscated under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act, for short). Reference was also made to Section 111 of the Act. Penalty of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.400/- was imposed on Jaspal Walia and Mohinder Singh Walia, respectively. We shall be again referring to these orders while dealing with the contention of the petitioners. 3. In the first appeal Jaspal Walia partly succeeded, as it was directed that 4 bangles of 23 carat plus purity should be confiscated, but other 4 bangles and two necklaces of less than 23 carat purity should be released on payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. This order was passed giving benefit of doubt in respect of four bangles and two necklaces and after observing that there was violation of Section 77 of the Act. The penalty amount was reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. In the case of Mohinder Singh Walia, however, no benefit or relief was granted. Both Jaspal Walia and Mohinder Singh Walia filed revision petitions under Section 129 DD of the Act, but did not succeed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were wearing gold articles on their body and thus there was no concealment. In the case of Mohinder Singh Walia, however, no benefit or relief was granted. Both Jaspal Walia and Mohinder Singh Walia filed revision petitions under Section 129 DD of the Act, but did not succeed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were wearing gold articles on their body and thus there was no concealment. It is further submitted that purity of the gold articles was not tested by an authorized laboratory and the petitioners had made a request for re-test and re-examination of the gold articles, which was refused and rejected. He has placed reliance on a decision of Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of Uma Balasaraswathi Vs. Collector of Customsdecided on 3rd August, 1987. 5. At the outset, we notice that factual disputes have been raised. As a writ Court, we cannot go into and re-examine the correctness of the factual findings as an appellate court. We are primarily concerned and have to decide whether there is any error or lapse in the decision making process and whether the decision taken is fair and just and takes into consideration the relevant facts and nothing relevant has been ignored. It is clear from the “panchnama” that the two petitioners were found to be wearing substantial quantity of gold articles on their body after they arrived from London on 22nd September, 1990. Jaspal Walia was found to be wearing 8 gold bangles and 2 gold necklaces weighing 195 gms. A certified gold smith was called at the spot and after testing, he certified that 4 bangles weighing 105 gms. were of 23 carat plus purity. In other words, they were of 24 carat gold. Similarly, in the case of Mohinder Singh Walia, the gold “Kara” weighing 55 gms. was tested and examined and the jewellery appraiser who opined that the “Kara” was unused, having no varnish and was of 23 carat plus purity and in crude form. He further opined that jewellery of this kind was normally not worn in India or abroad. The said appraiser was cross-examined during the course of adjudication proceedings on behalf of Mohinder Singh and had stated that the “Kara” was not polished and did not have any craftsmanship, but joint was visible. He affirmed that jewellery of this type was normally not worn in India or abroad. The said appraiser was cross-examined during the course of adjudication proceedings on behalf of Mohinder Singh and had stated that the “Kara” was not polished and did not have any craftsmanship, but joint was visible. He affirmed that jewellery of this type was normally not worn in India or abroad. Order passed in the case of Jaspal Walia clearly records that she did not appear and had repeatedly sought adjournments before the original adjudicating authority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the affidavit of Kalyan Karmkar resident of Allahabad, wherein he had stated that he was a goldsmith and had crafted one gold “Kara” and four bangles from old gold jewellery given to him by Jaspal Walia on 10th August, 1989. As per the said affidavit, he had crafted one gold “Kara” weighing 60.400 gms and 4 gold bangles weighing 116.300 gms. Similarly, on 3rd November, 1989, he received from Mohinder Singh Walia, gold ornaments and had crafted a gold chain with pendant weighing 21.00 gms and six bangles of white gold weighing 60 gms. The said affidavit does not indicate whether Kalyan Karmkar had issued any bill or receipt for labour charges or for re-crafting the old jewellery. Even otherwise, we find that the gold “Kara” and the 4 bangles seized because of their weight, do not match with the description of the gold “Kara” and four bangles mentioned in the said affidavit. The four gold bangles were weighing 105 gms. whereas the 4 gold bangles mentioned in the affidavit were weighing 116.300 gms. The gold “Kara” seized was weighing 55 gms., whereas as the gold “Kara” mentioned in the affidavit was weighing 60.400 gms. We also note that the gold articles seized were of 23 carat plus purity. 7. Judgment of the tribunal in Uma Balasaraswathi(supra) does not help or assist the petitioners. The tribunal went into facts as a fact finding authority. The appellant in the said case along with his two daughters and mother-in-law had gone to the red channel of the Customs Baggage hall and had declared four gold bangles which she was wearing. It was observed that the department had not obtained any expert opinion and, therefore, the tribunal was not sure that the gold articles seized were in fact gold bullion. It was observed that the department had not obtained any expert opinion and, therefore, the tribunal was not sure that the gold articles seized were in fact gold bullion. In the present case, the authorities had taken precaution by taking expert opinion of a certified gold smith and jewellery appraiser. The said jewellery appraiser was cross-examined by advocate of Mohinder Singh Walia. As noticed, the case of Jaspal Walia went unrepresented as she did not appear before the adjudicating authority. 8. Viewed from all angles, we do not think that the impugned orders require and justify interference. They record factual findings and have taken notice of the material and relevant facts. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.