Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar recalled its earlier interim directions and declined to interfere with Customs action against a US citizen of Indian origin after officials intercepted the family at Indira Gandhi International Airport while they were using the green channel, with 17 mobile phones and over 500 grams of gold jewellery found concealed in an infant’s stroller. The Bench said attending weddings cannot justify Indian origin foreigner bringing about half a kilogram of gold jewellery into India without declaring it and noted there was no explanation for carrying 17 high-value phones through the green channel without declaration. The Court directed Customs to issue a show cause notice, consider any reply and request for re-export, and dismissed the connected contempt petition with costs.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by an overseas citizen challenging the detention of goods by the customs authorities at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, upon arrival from abroad along with family members, including an infant child. The petitioner alleged prolonged detention at the airport and sought release of various detained items, including electronic goods and gold jewellery, claiming that several items constituted personal effects while others were intended as gifts.

Also Read: Party Status, Authority To Invoke Arbitration And Maintainability Fall Within Tribunal’s Domain Under Section 16 Of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act ; Supreme Court

The customs authorities contended that the petitioner was intercepted while passing through the green channel and that suspicious images were detected during X-ray screening of baggage. It was stated that a black backpack attached to the infant’s stroller contained multiple undeclared electronic items and gold jewellery, which were recovered and seized. CCTV footage from the airport was relied upon to substantiate concealment.

An earlier order dated 3 December 2025 had granted interim relief, including release of certain used items and directions for hearing by the customs department. Subsequently, the customs department filed a review petition asserting concealment of material facts. A connected contempt petition was also filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance with the earlier order.

The statutory framework invoked included proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, particularly in relation to seizure and issuance of a show cause notice.

The Court recorded that the earlier order was passed “based on the submissions made before the Court to the extent that there were a total of 30 items which were detained” and on allegations of harassment and unreasonable detention. Upon consideration of additional facts placed in the review petition, the Court observed that “the Customs Department has… taken a position that this is a case of outright smuggling and there was a deliberate intention on the part of the Petitioner to hide all the impermissible goods.”

Referring to the CCTV footage, the Court noted that it had been taken on record and that “a perusal of the same would show that, upon exiting the aircraft… the ‘black backpack’ was deliberately put by the Petitioner at the lower portion of the stroller.” The Court further recorded that “the items detained… were recovered from the ‘black backpack’” and that the goods had been “concealed deliberately by the Petitioner.”

The Bench observed that certain recoveries, including returned items, were neither disclosed in the writ petition nor mentioned during oral submissions, stating that “there is no mention of the same in the petition nor any oral submissions were made.”

On the maintainability of the writ petition, the Court recorded that “this was not a case which would warrant interference of this Court under writ jurisdiction.” It further stated that “there can be no justification for anyone to carry 17 mobile phones into the country… without declaring the same,” and that attendance at family weddings could not justify bringing undeclared gold jewellery.

The Court concluded that “these facts were not disclosed in the writ petition and a contrary impression of illegal detention was sought to be conveyed to the Court,” and that the earlier order had been obtained on a misleading factual foundation.

The Court directed that “the order dated 3rd December, 2025 is recalled”. The Customs Department shall now proceed in accordance with law, after issuing a Show Cause Notice in terms of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.” It was specifically ordered that “the Show Cause Notice shall be served within the prescribed time period” upon the petitioner.

Also Read: Accused Cannot Seek Company, Bank Records Under CrPC Section 91 During Probe To Answer Queries; Delhi High Court

The service of the Show Cause Notice shall be affected on the petitioner through the contact details provided, namely “the following email address and mobile No.” as mentioned in the judgment. “The Petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice. If the Petitioner makes any prayer for re-export, the same shall be considered. Personal hearing shall be afforded to the Petitioner” and that “thereafter an order, in accordance with law, shall be passed.”

“The writ petition and the review petition are disposed of in the aforesaid terms The next date of hearing stands cancelled. The contempt petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Customs Department. The Petitioner shall deposit the costs within one week from this order. The present contempt petition is disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Anushree Narain, Senior Standing Counsel; Mr. Yamit Jetley, Advocate; Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: Mohit Mann v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:11258-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 18328/2025 with REVIEW PET. 621/2025; CONT.CAS(C) 1875/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Renu Bhatnagar