Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain directed the implementation of an adjudicating authority’s order, as upheld in appeal, concerning the release of detained jewellery. The Court held that the mere possibility of a review petition could not justify withholding the enforcement of existing orders. It further directed that the detained items be released after payment of applicable warehousing charges, and the petitioner was instructed to approach the designated nodal officer for completion of formalities. The Court thus disposed of the writ petition with clear directions on release of goods, payment obligations, and verification requirements.

The matter concerned a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking implementation of the Order-in-Original dated 29th December 2023, confirmed by the Order-in-Appeal dated 26th May 2025, and the release of personal jewellery without imposition of warehouse charges. The petitioner, who had travelled from Saudi Arabia to Delhi on 18th November 2023 after visiting her husband residing in Mecca, was detained at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi. She was found wearing four gold bangles weighing 250 grams. The Customs Authorities detained the jewellery on the ground of non-declaration.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds TS-Transco’s Fresh Recruitment Notification | Cancelling 2011–12 AP-Transco Selection Process Not Arbitrary, Candidates Had No Vested Right to Appointment

Following the detention, the adjudicating authority issued an Order-in-Original on 29th December 2023. In the order, the authority recorded multiple findings. First, the free allowance under the Baggage Rules was denied on account of the non-declaration at both the red channel and green channel. Second, it was declared that the passenger was an ineligible passenger for the purposes of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 read with the Baggage Rules, 2016. Third, the adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the four gold bangles having purity 998, weighing 250 grams, valued at Rs. 14,58,778/-, under sections 111(d), 111(j), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Fourth, the adjudicating authority gave the option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,15,000/- along with applicable customs duty on the tariff valuation as on the date of detention.

The redemption was allowed within 120 days of issue of the order under Section 125(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, subject to completion of legal formalities and regulatory clearances. It was specified that if redemption was accepted, the passenger could not dispute the identity and valuation of the goods, and the redemption offer would cease after 120 days from the receipt of the order. Fifth, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,45,000/- on the petitioner under section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Department preferred an appeal challenging the Order-in-Original. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by its Order-in-Appeal dated 26th May 2025. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of redemption and penalties imposed. It recorded that the gold jewellery was owned by the respondent, was not in commercial quantity, and that the respondent was not a habitual offender. It was held that absolute confiscation would be harsh and not justified in the circumstances. The Appellate Authority concluded that there was no error in the adjudicating authority’s decision and accordingly rejected the departmental appeal.

In the writ petition before the High Court, the petitioner sought enforcement of the orders and requested release of the jewellery without warehouse charges. On behalf of the Department, counsel submitted that a review petition may be filed and argued that the jewellery was of 24-carat purity, rendering it unsuitable for daily wear and therefore questionable in nature. It was contended that this aspect justified the seizure.

The Court observed that the orders passed by the adjudicating and appellate authorities stood unchallenged. It recorded: “Considering that no review has been filed till date and the Order-in-Appeal has been issued way back on 26th May, 2025, the mere prospect of filing a review cannot be a ground to hold back implementation of these orders.”

The Court further noted that the Appellate Authority had specifically considered the purity of the jewellery and rejected the Department’s contention. Referring to paragraph 5.10 of the appellate order, the Court stated that the authority had stated: “I, after observing the ratios of the above judicial pronouncements and looking at the facts of the case i.e. the respondent was the owner of the impugned gold jewellery, impugned gold jewellery was not in commercial quantity the respondent not being a habitual offenders, I am of the view that the absolute confiscation of the said gold jewellery would be harsh and not justified. Also, I find that the absolute confiscation of the impugned gold on the ground that the gold jewellery of such high purity come in the category of primary gold cannot be accepted as a reasonable conclusion. There is no allegation that the respondent is a habitual offender and was involved in similar offence earlier or there was anything on record to prove that the respondent was part of an organized smuggling syndicate. Therefore, I arrive at the conclusion that decision of the adjudicating authority to grant the option of redemption for the impugned gold jewellery to the respondent is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Since, there was no error by the adjudicating authority, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.”

The Court observed that the Appellate Authority had categorically negated the Department’s claim regarding smuggling. It recorded that the Appellate Authority had concluded that the petitioner was not a habitual offender, that the goods were not in commercial quantity, and that redemption was appropriate.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction to Yatra | Holds ‘Yatra’ is Generic Descriptive of Travel, No Monopoly Over Common Word Under Trade Marks Act

The Court stated that since no review had been filed until the date of hearing, and given the appellate findings, the orders were to be enforced. It thus concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the redemption order and consequent release of jewellery upon compliance with conditions, subject to warehouse charges.

The Court directed that the Order-in-Original be given effect to. It recorded: “Under these circumstances, the Order-in-Original be given effect to. However, the Petitioner shall be liable to pay the warehousing charges as applicable on the date when the detention was made.” The Court further specified the procedure for release of the jewellery: “For the purpose of release, the Petitioner shall approach the following nodal officer who shall thereafter guide the Petitioner to the appropriate authority. Mr. Sandeep Lamba, Superintendent, Customs, Office of Commissioner, Customs, IGI Airports, T-3, New Delhi, Mob. No.: 7405345000, Email: igilegaldelhi@gmail.com.”

It was directed that the concerned authority shall release the detained items after due verification of the credentials of the petitioner. The Court disposed of the petition and all pending applications in these terms.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashish Panday, Mr. Ajay Singh and Mr. Akshat Raghuvanshi, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Aditya Singla, Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC with Ms. Arya Suresh Nair and Mr. Ritwik Saha, Advocates

Case Title: Ashiya v. Commissioner of Customs

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7129-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 12487/2025

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain