[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Jasvinder Kaur vs Commissioner Of Customs (Appeal) New … on 17 April, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4851/2025
JASVINDER KAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naveen Malhotra & Mr. Ritvik
Malhotra, Advs. (M: 9990899563)
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEAL)
NEW CUSTOM HOISE, NEAR IGI AIRPORT
NEW DELHI AND ANR. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC, CBIC with
Ms. Navruti Ojha & Ms. Priya
Bhatiya, Advs. (M: 9650049869)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER
% 17.04.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL.22191/2025 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4851/2025
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – Ms. Jasvinder
Kaur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking
issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 1 –
Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), Customs House, IGI Airport to decide
the appeal filed by the Petitioner assailing the Order-in-Original bearing no.
107/ADJ/2021 dated 31st March 2021 passed by Respondent No.2 – Joint
Commissioner of Customs, Terminal-3, IGI Airport.
W.P.(C) 4851/2025 Page 1 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 21:48:21
4. The case of the Petitioner is that she is a Canadian citizen, who arrived
in India from Dubai on 18th August, 2019. The Petitioner, who is also a senior
citizen, was wearing 14 gold bangles weighing 1110 grams. It is the case of
the Petitioner that the bangles belonged to the Petitioner’s mother-in-law and
are very old bangles, gifted to her. However, the same were seized by the
Customs Authority. Detention receipt bearing no. 46624 dated 18th August
2019 was also issued by the Customs Department for the said seizure. A show
cause notice was issued on 9th October, 2019 and pursuant to the same, the
Order-in-Original was passed on 31st March 2021 directing the absolute
confiscation of bangles in the following terms.
“I order absolute confiscation of the seized Fourteen
(14) Gold Bangles totally weighing 1110 Grams valued
at Rs. 38,44,119/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Forty
Four Thousand One Hundred and Nineteen only) which
was imported by Noticee Ms. Jasvinder Kaur (D.O.B-
13.06.1975) D/o Sh. Surjit Singh Sachdeva and W/o Sh.
Jasmeet Singh Bhatia, under Section 111(j), 111(1),
111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962;”
5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that a personal hearing was
granted to the Petitioner, during which certain adjournments were sought.
Further, it is also pointed out by the ld. Counsel that the date of the order is
31st March, 2021 whereas hearing notices were given for 2nd April, 2021 ,
5th April, 2021 and 6th April, 2021 which would show that the Order-in-
Original was passed in a pre-decided manner.
6. The Petitioner has appealed against this Order-in-Original before the
Respondent No.1 on 25th June, 2021.
7. Till date, no hearing has been fixed by the Respondent No. 1 as per the
Petitioner.
W.P.(C) 4851/2025 Page 2 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 21:48:21
8. Today, when the Petition was taken up for hearing, Mr. Malhotra, ld.
Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the hearing notice has now been
received and the hearing has been fixed for 21st April, 2025.
9. Such a long gap in passing of the Order-in-Original and fixing of
personal hearing shall, that too in a case of seizure of jewellery of a foreign
resident, would be completely unacceptable.
10. Since the Petitioner is a foreign citizen and the gold bangles are
personal effects, the same would be fully exempted under the Baggage Rules,
2016 as well, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, (2017) 16 SSC 93.
11. The appeal ought to have been taken in time for hearing. Five years is
a substantial period of gap.
12. Hearing notice has now been received by the Petitioner after filing of
the present petition.
13. Since the hearing is fixed for 21st April, 2025, further orders are not
being passed by this Court.
14. The Respondent No.1- Commissioner of Customs(Appeal) shall bear
in mind the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner in the letter dated 10th
February, 2025 as also the recent judgments of this Court where personal
effects of foreigners have been exempted from seizure and the detention has
been set aside. The details of the said judgments/orders passed by this Court
are as under:
● Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs, W.P.(C)
6855/2023 decided on 15th September 2025
● Mr. Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs New Delhi
(2025: DHC: 1162-DB)W.P.(C) 4851/2025 Page 3 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 21:48:22
● Farida Aliyeva v. Commissioner of Customs (2024: DHC: 9533-DB)
● Anjali Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (2025: DHC: 372-DB)
15. The Respondent No.1- Commissioner of Customs(Appeal) shall pass
the order by 15th May, 2025 and the said order shall be placed before this
Court on 19th May, 2025.
16. List on 19th May, 2025.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
APRIL 17, 2025/dk/ck
W.P.(C) 4851/2025 Page 4 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 21:48:22
[ad_2]
Source link