Delhi High Court
Amal Krishna vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 March, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10th March, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 2957/2025, CM APPL. 14010/2025 & CM APPL.
14011/2025
AMAL KRISHNA .....Petitioner
Through: Mrs. Kavitha KT, Mr. Subash
Chandran, Mr. Sharat Gopal, Mr.
Syam Krishnan, Mr. Akash Awana,
Ms. Pinal Pandagare and Mr. Sakti
Chaurvedi, 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-Amal Krishna
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 gold chain
weighing 28 grams, valued at Rs. 1,76,488/-.
3. A brief background of the present case as stated in the petition is that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2957/2025 Page 1 of 6
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
18:59:41
the Petitioner was travelling from the United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’) to India
to participate in a marriage ceremony in Kerala. The Petitioner arrived at the
Indira Gandhi International Airport on 9th April, 2024. However, as soon as
the Petitioner reached the airport, he was intercepted and the Petitioner’s
jewellery i.e. a gold chain weighing 28 grams was seized by the concerned
Custom officials.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said jewellery has been worn by
him for his personal use and the same was confiscated by the Custom
authorities while he was crossing the green channel.
5. It is further stated in the petition that the Petitioner 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.
6. Issue notice. Ms. Narain, ld. Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice.
7. The Court has perused the impugned order passed by the adjudicating
authority. The same is extracted for a ready reference:
“i) I deny the ‘Free Allowance’ if any, admissible
to the Pax Amal Krishna 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, Amal Krishna, is an
“eligible Passenger” fo the purpose of the
Notification No.50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017
(as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as
amended)Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2957/2025 Page 2 of 6
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
18:59:41
iii) I order confiscation of the “One gold chain
having purity 929, weight 28 grams, valued at
Rs.1,76,488/-” recovered from the Pax Amal
Krishna and detained vide DR No.
“DR/INDEL4/10.04.20:l4/52546” dated 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.25,000/-
( Rupees Twenty Five 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 ef valid “Residency permit card ID No. 784-
1996-3924636-4, Issuing date 16.02.2024, Expiry
date 15.02.2026 issued by 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.18,000/- (Rupees
Eighteen Thousand Only) on the Pax Amal Krishna
under section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act,
1962.”
8. 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,
2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended). Further, the
Petitioner is permitted to redeem the gold chain by paying a fine of Rs.
25,000/- and incurring an additional penalty of Rs. 18,000/-. In addition, Rs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2957/2025 Page 3 of 6
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
18:59:41
250/- per day is being sought as warehousing charges for the gold.
9. 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 his statement dated 10.04.2024., The Pax
has also requested waiver of Show Cause Notice and
Personal Hearing vide letter dated 20.05.2024 and after
accepting his request, I proceed to adjudicate the case.”
10. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the gold chain of the
Petitioner has been worn regularly by him and the same ought to be returned
to the Petitioner. The same are part of his personal effects.
11. A photograph of the Petitioner wearing the said jewellery has been
placed on record. The wedding card of the Petitioner, showing the date of
marriage as 21st April, 2024 has also been placed on record. A perusal of the
photograph along with the wedding card would itself show that the Petitioner
is a bona fide passenger who was travelling to India to attend a wedding
ceremony.
12. It is not in dispute as has been recorded by the adjudicating authority
that the Petitioner himself is a UAE resident with a proper resident ID. The
gold chain has been valued at Rs. 1,76,488/-.
13. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2957/2025 Page 4 of 6
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
18:59:41
the manner the Custom authorities have.
14. 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).
15. Moreover, in the present case, a show cause notice has not been issued
to the Petitioner and no personal hearing has been afforded.
16. The waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing is not in
accordance with law as held recently in several judgments, including the
following: –
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).
17. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2957/2025 Page 5 of 6
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
18:59:41
liable to be collected from the Petitioner. The charges, if any, already
deposited shall be refunded to the Petitioner.
18. The gold item 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.
19. 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) 2957/2025 Page 6 of 6
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
18:59:41