Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the release of his gold jewellery that had been detained by the Customs Department. A division bench of Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ., directed release of the gold jewellery and held that the detention of the gold jewellery was illegal as it violated principles of natural justice, since the Customs Department failed to issue a show cause notice or provide a hearing before confiscation, and detained jewellery that was clearly personal.
The petitioner, an Indian citizen employed in the UAE, had arrived at Terminal-3 of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, for attending a wedding ceremony. Upon arrival, the petitioner was wearing a gold chain weighing 32 grams, which was detained by the Customs Department on 09-04-2024. The petitioner later received an Order-in-Original dated 13-11-2024, directing the redemption of the jewellery upon the payment of Rs. 25,000 for re-export along with an imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000. The petitioner contended that he had not been given a proper hearing before the issuance of the impugned order. He submitted that the gold chain was his personal jewellery and produced photographs as evidence. Additionally, he argued that the waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing, obtained by the Customs Department through a standard form, was contrary to law. Despite serving an advance copy of the petition to the Customs Department, no representative appeared on its behalf before the court.
The Court took note of the repeated failures of the Customs Department to appear before the court in such matters, observing that this lack of coordination wasted judicial time. The Court examined the Order-in-Original and found that the petitioner had allegedly waived his right to show cause notice and personal hearing through a standard form letter. The Court referred to its previous decisions in Amit Kumar v. Commr. of Customs, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 647 and Makhinder Chopra v. Commr. of Customs, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1173, wherein it had held that such waivers, obtained through standard forms, did not comply with the principles of natural justice.
The Court further observed that the issuance of a show cause notice and the grant of a personal hearing were mandatory requirements under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, before confiscating any goods. Additionally, the Court relied on previous judgments such as Nathan Narayanswamy v. Commr. of Customs1 and Farida Aliyeva v. Commr. of Customs, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8786, which had held that personal jewellery worn by passengers could not be confiscated under the Baggage Rules, 2016. The Court also noted that Annexure-I of the Baggage Rules did not prohibit jewellery or ornaments worn by passengers, thereby invalidating the Customs Department’s classification of the petitioner as an ‘ineligible passenger.’
The Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original was legally unsustainable on two primary grounds: (i) the Customs Department had failed to issue a show cause notice or provide a proper hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice; and (ii) the detained gold chain was clearly personal jewellery, which was not liable for confiscation. Accordingly, the Court quashed the Order-in-Original dated 13-11-2024 and directed the Customs Department to release the gold chain within four weeks. The petitioner or his authorized representative was permitted to collect the jewellery upon verification of credentials.
Thus, the petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
[Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v UOI, W.P.(C) 2690/2025, decided on 04-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Kavitha K.T., Mr. Subhash Chandra, Mr. S. Gopal & Ms. Syam Krishna, Advocates for petitioner;
None for respondents.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
1. W.P.(C) 6855/2023, decided on 15-09-2023.
