Petitioner Cannot Be Rendered Completely Remediless: Delhi HC Allows Time-Barred Appeal Against Customs’ Gold Confiscation After Traveller Says He Acted On Wrong Legal Advice
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain permitted an air passenger to pursue an otherwise belated appeal arising from the Customs Department’s confiscation of gold brought from Thailand. The Court noted that the traveller had acted on the understanding—based on advice said to have been given by customs officials—that no remedy was available after an order of absolute confiscation. Stating that he should not be left without recourse, the Bench directed that his appeal be entertained on merits despite the delay.
The petitioner arrived in India from Bangkok on 16 July 2023 and was intercepted by Customs officials at Indira Gandhi International Airport. A 100-gram gold chain in his possession was seized through a detention receipt issued the same day, and the item was subsequently appraised by the Customs Department on 31 July 2023. The record reflects that the petitioner visited the Customs office multiple times, including on 26 July 2023 and 18 August 2023, as shown by the entry passes placed before the Court.
According to the petitioner, Customs officials obtained his signatures on a pre-printed waiver of show-cause notice and personal hearing. An Order-in-Original was then issued on 12 August 2023 directing absolute confiscation of the gold, denying free allowance, declaring him an ineligible passenger under the applicable notification and Baggage Rules, ordering confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(j), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, and imposing penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b).
When asked why he did not challenge the order within the prescribed period, the petitioner submitted that he was wrongly advised by the Customs Department that no remedy was available once absolute confiscation had been ordered. The respondent countered that the order had remained with the petitioner since September 2023 and that he had expressly waived notice and hearing. The Court reviewed these rival contentions against the statutory framework governing seizure, detention periods, and issuance of notice under Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act.
The petitioner claimed he was advised by Customs that no remedy was available against the order. The respondent contended that the petitioner had possessed the order since September 2023 and had expressly waived his right to a show cause notice and hearing. The dispute concerned whether the petitioner had any available legal remedy in light of the confiscation and alleged waiver.
The Court recorded that the petitioner had been made to sign standard waivers and noted that such documents cannot form the basis of a valid deprivation of rights. It observed that, in light of the precedent cited, “standard pre-printed waivers of Show Cause Notice and personal hearing would not be valid in law.” It further noted that the continued retention of the seized gold was impermissible in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, quoting that decision extensively.
Referring to the statutory framework, the Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s conclusion that “the only power that has been conferred upon the Revenue to extend the time period is in accordance with the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act, 1962.” It noted the Supreme Court’s clarification that “any effort to say that the release under Section 110A… would extinguish the operation of the consequence of not issuing show-cause notice within the statutory period… would be contrary to the plain meaning and intendment of the statute.”
The Bench also recorded the Supreme Court’s view that “Section 110A is by way of an interim order… [and] does not, in any way, impede or limit the operation of the mandatory provision of Section 110(2).” Highlighting the consequences flowing from the absence of a timely notice, it cited the finding that “in the absence of there being any notice… within the extended period upto one year, the consequence that ought to follow is release of the seized car.”
In applying these principles to the petitioner’s case, the Court stated that “the Petitioner cannot be rendered completely remediless in this matter as he may have proceeded on the legal advice.”
The Court directed that “the Petitioner is permitted to challenge the OIO dated 12th September, 2023 by way of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). If the appeal is filed by 10th January, 2026, the same shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.”
“While deciding the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall bear in mind the decisions in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, (2017) 16 SCC 93 and Mr. Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs New Delhi 2025: DHC: 1162-DB, as the item involved is only a gold chain which was purchased by the Petitioner. The said appeal shall be disposed of in an expeditious manner, and in any case, within a period of four months from the date of filing of the appeal.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Richa Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vishal Chadha, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate
Case Title: Tarun Arora v. Commissioner of Customs
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10330-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 16724/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Shail Jain
