Gopika Vennankot Govind vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 March, 2025

0
25

Delhi High Court

Gopika Vennankot Govind vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 March, 2025

Author: Prathiba M. Singh

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                          $~21
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                                    Date of decision: 10th March, 2025
                          +      W.P.(C) 2784/2025, CM APPL. 13194/2025 & CM APPL.
                                 3195/2025
                                 GOPIKA VENNANKOT GOVIND                .....Petitioner
                                                    Through:     Mrs. Kavitha K.T., Mr. Subash
                                                                 Chandran, Mr. Sharat Gopal, Mr.
                                                                 Syam Krishnan K., Mr. Akash Awana,
                                                                 Ms. Minal Pandagare and Ms. Shakki
                                                                 Chaturvedi, Advs.
                                               versus
                                 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              .....Respondents
                                               Through:          Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr.
                                                                 Ankit Kumar, Adv.
                                 CORAM:
                                 JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                                 JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
                          Prathiba M. Singh, J. (ORAL)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Gopika Vennankot
Govind under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking
issuance of an appropriate writ for setting aside the order dated 7th November,
2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Terminal-3, Indira
Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi (hereinafter, the ‘adjudicating
authority’) by which, the adjudicating authority has seized the Petitioner’s
two gold chains with pendants, weighing a total of 49 grams, valued at Rs.
3,15,795/-.

3. A brief background of the present case as stated in the petition is that
the Petitioner is a minor aged about 17 years, who was travelling with her

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2784/2025 Page 1 of 6
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
18:59:41
family from the United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’) to Delhi. The Petitioner along
with her family, arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi
on 9th April, 2024. It is stated that the family was travelling to India to
participate in a relative’s wedding which was to be held in Kerala on 21st
April, 2024. Further, on 9th April, 2024 as soon as the Petitioner reached the
airport with her family, her jewellery, which she was carrying in person i.e.
two gold chains with pendants, weighing a total of 49 grams, was detained by
the Custom authorities.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said jewellery has been worn by
her since her childhood days and the same was confiscated by the Custom
authorities while the family was crossing the green channel. Appraisal was
sought by the Petitioner’s father on 22nd May, 2024 and he also agreed for re-
exporting the gold items. Further, the Petitioner’s father submitted a
statement to the concerned Custom officials dated 9th April, 2024 and
thereafter sent a letter dated 20th May, 2024 providing details of the detained
jewellery items as also highlighting that the Petitioner is an eligible passenger
under the Baggage Rules, 2016. However, the adjudicating authority passed
the impugned order thereby seizing the jewellery of the Petitioner.

5. The Court has perused the impugned order passed by the adjudicating
authority. The same is extracted for a ready reference: (Extract pg 49-Order,
Annex, P-1)
“1) I deny the ‘Free Allowance’ if any, admissible
to the Pax Gopika Vennankout Govind for not
declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer
at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at
Green Channel who intercepted him and recovered
the detained goods from him.

ii) I declare the passenger, Gopika Vennankot

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2784/2025 Page 2 of 6
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
18:59:41
Govind, is an “eligible Passenger” for the purpose
of the Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated
30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules,
2016 (as amended).

iⅲ) I order confiscation of the “Two gold chains
with pendants having purity 937. weight 49 grams,
valued at Rs. 3,15,795/-” recovered from the Pax
Gopika Vennankot Govind and detained vide DR
No. “DR/INDEL4/10.04.2024/52601 dt.

10.04.2024″ under section 111(d), 111(j) and
111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962;

iv) I give an option to redeem, the goods
confiscated, above, on payment of fine of Rs.
40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) under
Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and allow the
same for re-export from India only by the Pax since
the Pax is a holder of valid resident ID No.-784-
2007-2059625-1, issuing date 05.06.2023, Expiry
date 25.05.2025, issued by the United Arab
Emirates. I allow redemption of the detained goods
within 120 days of issue of this order under Section
125(3)
of the Customs Act, 1962) The redemption is
allowed after the completion of legal formalities in
this regard and also on fulfillment of any regulatory
clearances/ approvals/ payments, as required. The
offer of redemption, if accepted, shall be subject to
condition that the Passenger shall not dispute the
identity and valuation of the goods. The offer of
redemption shall cease after 120 days of the receipt
of this order.

v) I also impose a penalty of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Two Thousand Only) on the Pax Gopika
Vennankot Govind under section 112 (a) and
112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.”

6. The impugned order inter alia holds that the passenger is an eligible
passenger in terms of the Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30th June,

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2784/2025 Page 3 of 6
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
18:59:41
2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended). Further, the
Petitioner is free to redeem both the chains by paying a fine of Rs. 40,000/-
and incurring an additional penalty of Rs. 32,000/-. In addition, Rs. 250/- per
day is being sought as warehousing charges for the two chains.

7. The impugned order also records that no show cause notice and
personal hearing was sought by the Petitioner. The relevant portion of the
impugned order recording the same is extracted hereinunder for a ready
reference:

” DISCUSSIONS & FINDINGS

8. I have carefully gone through the facts of the
case and considered the submissions/ admissions
made by the Passenger in her statement dated
10.04.2024. The Pax has also requested waiver of
Show Cause Notice and Personal Hearing vide
letter dated 22.05.2024 and after accepting her
request, I proceed to adjudicate the case.”

8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that these are small gold chains
which the Petitioner used to wear since childhood and the same ought to be
returned to the Petitioner. They are her personal effects.

9. A photograph of the Petitioner wearing the said jewellery as a child has
also been placed on record. The wedding card showing the date of marriage
on 21st April, 2024 has also been placed on record. A perusal of the
photographs along with the wedding card would itself show that she is a bona
fide passenger who was travelling to India to attend a wedding ceremony.

10. It is not in dispute as has been recorded by the adjudicating authority
that the Petitioner herself is a UAE resident with a proper resident ID. The
two gold chains have been valued at Rs. 3,15,795/-.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2784/2025 Page 4 of 6
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
18:59:41

11. The Petitioner being a non-resident is fully entitled to the benefit
provided to an eligible passenger under the Baggage Rules, 2016. The goods
constitute personal effects of the Petitioner and could not have been seized in
the manner the Custom authorities have.

12. This Court has now pronounced several orders/judgments, following
various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, wherein it has been
held clearly that if the gold items seized are personal jewellery, the same
would not be liable to be confiscated. The few orders/judgments passed by
this Court in this regard are as under:

Nathan Narayanswamy v. Commissioner of Customs, [Delhi
High
Court, W.P.(C) 6855/2023 dated 15th September, 2023]

Farida Aliyeva v. Commissioner of Customs,
(2024:DHC:9533-DB).

● Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v. Union Of India & Ors.

(2025:DHC:1444-DB).

13. Moreover, in the present case, a show cause notice has not been issued
to the Petitioner as also no personal hearing has been afforded.

14. The waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing is not in
accordance with law as held recently in a catena of judgments, including the
following:-

(i) Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs
(2025:DHC:751-DB)

(ii) Mr. Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs, New
Delhi, (2025:DHC:1162-DB)

iii) Mohamed Shamiuddeen v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors.

(2025:DHC:1079-DB).

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2784/2025 Page 5 of 6
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
18:59:41

15. The impugned order dated 7th November, 2024 passed by the
adjudicating authority is accordingly quashed. No penalty or redemption fine
shall be collected from the Petitioner. No warehousing charges shall also be
liable to be collected from the Petitioner. The charges, if any, already
deposited shall be refunded to the Petitioner.

16. The gold items of the Petitioner seized by the Custom officials in the
present case, may be released within two weeks to the Petitioner or any
authorised representative, after verifying their identity.

17. The petition is disposed of. All pending applications, if any, are also
disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
MARCH 10, 2025
dj/rks

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2784/2025 Page 6 of 6
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
18:59:41



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here