[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Rajvir Kaur vs Commissioner Of Custom & Anr on 25 August, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~66 & 69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th August, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 12741/2025
RAJVIR KAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harsh Trikha, Adv.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC with Ms.
Navruti Ojha, Adv. (M:9650049869)
69 AND
+ W.P.(C) 12816/2025 & CM APPL. 52314/2025
JUJHAR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harsh Trikha, Adv.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC with Ms.
Navruti Ojha, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 52314/2025 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 12816/2025
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12741/2025
W.P.(C) 12816/2025
3. The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioners- Ms. Rajvir
Kaur and Mr. Jujhar Singh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, inter alia, assailing the Orders-in-Original dated 3rd June, 2024 in
W.P.(C) 12741/2025 and 5th June, 2024 in W.P.(C) 12816/2025 (hereinafter,
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 12741/2025 & W.P.(C) 12816/2025 Page 1 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:38:54
'impugned orders').
4. The Petitioners i.e., husband and wife, are British citizens and Overseas
Citizen of India card holders. They challenge the impugned orders passed by
Office of the Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi. The case
of the Petitioners is that they were travelling together with their two children
on 2nd April, 2024 from London to New Delhi to attend a wedding in the
family. Upon arrival at the IGI Airport, New Delhi, the Petitioners were
intercepted by the concerned officials of the Customs Department and the
following gold items were seized from the Petitioners:
● Sixteen gold bangles, collectively weighing 212 grams in W.P.(C)
12741/2025
● Two gold kadas, collectively weighing 200 grams in W.P.(C)
12816/2025
5. No Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioners on the ground that
the same was waived by the Petitioners. The impugned orders, thereafter,
permitted re-export of the goods in the following terms.
Order in Original in W.P.(C) 12741/2025
"ORDER
(i) I deny the 'Free Allowance' if any admissible
to the passenger Ms. Rajvir Kaur for not declaring
the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red
Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green
Channel who intercepted her and recovered the
detained goods from her;
ii) I declare the passenger, Ms. Rajvir Kaur as
"an ineligible Passenger" for the purpose of the
Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 (as
amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as
amended);
iii) I order confiscation of Sixteen gold bangles
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 12741/2025 & W.P.(C) 12816/2025 Page 2 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:38:54
having average purity 947 with gross and net
weight 212 grams having Assessable value
Rs.12,92,377/- recovered from the Pax under
Section 111(d), 111(j) & 111(m) of the Customs Act,
1962;
iv) I give an option to redeem the goods
confiscated above, on payment of a fine of Rs.
1,95,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ninety-Five
thousand Only) under Section 125 of Customs Act,
1962 and allowed the same for re-export from India
only by the Pax since the passenger is a United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
national. The redemption is to be allowed after the
completion of legal formalities in this regard and
also fulfilment of any regulatory clearances/
approvals required. The offer of redemption, if
accepted, shall be subject to condition that the Pax
shall not dispute the identity and valuation of the
detained goods. The offer of redemption shall cease
after 'One Hundred Twenty Days' from date of the
receipt of this order;
v) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,30,000/-
(Rupees One lakh and Thirty thousand only) on
the passenger Ms. Rajvir Kaur under Section 112
(a) & 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962."
Order in Original in W.P.(C) 12816/2025
ORDER
i) I deny the ‘Free Allowance’ if any admissible
to the passenger, Jujhar Singh for the various acts
of commission and omission;
ii) I declare the passenger, Jujhar Singh is “an
ineligible Passenger” for the purpose of the
Notification No. 50/ 2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 (as
amended ) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as
amended);
iii) I order confiscation of “Two gold kadas
having purity 991, weight 200 grams, valued at Rs.
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 12741/2025 & W.P.(C) 12816/2025 Page 3 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:38:54
12,70,950/ -” recovered from the Pax Jujhar Singh
and detained vide DR No. DR /INDEL4/ 02.04.
2024/ 35149 dated 02.04.2024, under Section under
Section 111(d), 111(j) & 111(m) of the Customs Act,
1962;
iv) I give an option to redeem the goods
confiscated above, on payment of a fine of Rs.
1,90,000/ – (Rs One Lakh Ninety Thousand Only )
under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and
allowed the same for re-export from India only by
the Pax since the passenger is a Great Britain
national having Great Britain Passport No.
136978234. The redemption is to be allowed after
the completion of legal formalities in this regard
and also fulfillment of any regulatory clearances/
approvals required. The offer of redemption, if
accepted, shall be subject to condition that the Pax
shall not dispute the identity and valuation of the
detained goods. The offer of redemption shall
cease after ‘One Hundred Twenty Days’ from date
of the receipt of this order;
v) I also impose a penalty of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs
One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Only) on the
passenger Jujhar Singh under Section 112(a) &
112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.”
6. Submission on behalf of the Petitioners is that the above orders are not
being given effect to on the ground that an appeal has been preferred by the
Customs Department, however, no notice of appeal has been received by the
Petitioners and no personal hearing has been fixed in the appeal.
7. Mr. Shubham Tyagi, ld. SSC appearing for the Customs Department
has sought instructions and submits that the Customs Department has
challenged the impugned orders in the appeal. In one matter i.e. W.P.(C)
12816/2025, it is seen that the appeal has been filed way back in August, 2024
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 12741/2025 & W.P.(C) 12816/2025 Page 4 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:38:54
by the Customs Department, however, no decision has been taken till date and
no date for personal hearing has been fixed.
8. Heard. Both the Petitioners are British citizens and they are ‘eligible
passengers’ in terms of the Baggage Rules, 2016. In view of the decision in
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence vs Ms. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, 2017
(16) SCC 93 where the Court has come to the conclusion to the effect that if
the gold jewelry are personal effects and the same would not be seized. The
relevant paragraphs of the said order read as under:
“13. Insofar as the question of violation of the
provisions of the Act is concerned, we are of the opinion
that the respondent herein did not violate the provisions
of Section 77 of the Act since the necessary declaration
was made by the respondent while passing through the
green channel. Such declarations are deemed to be
implicit and devised with a view to facilitate expeditious
and smooth clearance of the passenger. Further, as per
the International Convention on the Simplification and
Harmonisation of Customs Procedures (Kyoto 18-5-
1973), a passenger going through the green channel is
itself a declaration that he has no dutiable or prohibited
articles. Further, a harmonious reading of Rule 7 of
the Baggage Rules, 1998 read with Appendix E (2)
(quoted above), the respondent was not carrying any
dutiable goods because the goods were the bona fide
jewellery of the respondent for her personal use and
was intended to be taken out of India. Also, with regard
to the proximity of purchase of jewellery, all the
jewellery was not purchased a few days before the
departure of the respondent from UK, a large number
of items had been in use for a long period. It did not
make any difference whether the jewellery is new or
used. There is also no relevance of the argument that
since all the jewellery is to be taken out of India, it was,
therefore, deliberately brought to India for taking it toSignature Not Verified W.P.(C) 12741/2025 & W.P.(C) 12816/2025 Page 5 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:38:54
Singapore. Foreign tourists are allowed to bring into
India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is
meant to be taken out of India with them and it is a
prerequisite at the time of making endorsements on the
passport. Therefore, bringing jewellery into India for
taking it out with the passenger is permissible and is
not liable to any import duty.
* * *
*
15. […] Also, from the present facts and circumstances
of the case, it cannot be inferred that the jewellery was
meant for import into India on the basis of return ticket
which was found to be in the possession of the
respondent. Moreover, we cannot ignore the contention
of the respondent that her parents at the relevant time
were in Indonesia and she had plans of proceeding to
Indonesia. Some of the jewellery items purchased by
the respondent were for her personal use and some
were intended to be left with her parents in Indonesia.
The High Court has rightly held that when she
brought jewellery of a huge amount into the country,
the respondent did not seem to have the intention to
smuggle the jewellery into India and to sell it off. Even
on the examination of the jewellery for costing
purposes, it has come out to be of Rs 25 lakhs and not
Rs 1.27 crores as per DRI. The High Court was right
in holding that it is not the intention of the Board to
verify the newness of every product which a traveller
brings with him as his personal effect. It is quite
reasonable that a traveller may make purchases of his
personal effects before embarking on a tour to India.
It could be of any personal effect including jewellery.
Therefore, its newness is of no consequence. The
expression “new goods” in their original packing has
to be understood in a pragmatic way.”
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 12741/2025 & W.P.(C) 12816/2025 Page 6 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:38:54
9. There are sufficient photographs, which have been placed on record to
show that the gold items, which have been seized by the Customs Department,
have been worn by the Petitioners in the past while they were on religious
trips and other travels to India.
10. Moreover, the Court also notices that in the impugned order in W.P.
(C) 12741/2025, the following has been recorded by the Customs Department:
“3. The Pax tendered her statement on 02.04.2024
under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in which
she inter alia stated that she was intercepted by the
Customs Officer after she had crossed the Green
Channel and during the DFMD and Xrav of her
baggage the above said items were recovered from
her; that the above mentioned recovered items
belongs to her; that she does not have its receipts
and bills; that she admits that she was aware of the
fact that there is Customs duty on the value above
baggage allowance in India; that she would be
agreeing with description and quantity and value
assessed by the department and was ready to pay the
Customs duty along with fine and penalty as
applicable; that she does not need any Show Cause
Notice or Personal Hearing in the matter; that she
had tendered her statement true and correct and
understood the same. She further stated that she had
tendered her statement without any duress, pressure
or threat.”
11. A perusal of the above would show that it is recorded in the said order
that both the SCN and personal hearing have been waived by the Petitioner.
Considering that this is a standard pre-printed waiver, which are signed by
tourists and other travelers in India, this would be contrary to law.
12. Moreover, non-issuance of SCN and non-grant of personal hearing in
this matter violates the principles of natural justice completely. As per
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 12741/2025 & W.P.(C) 12816/2025 Page 7 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:38:54
Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, even if some benefit of doubt is to be
given to the Customs Department that an oral Show Cause Notice was served
to the Petitioners, a reasonable opportunity of being heard is absolutely
mandatory. This has been held so in the case of Amit Kumar v. The
Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:751- DB. The Court has in the said
decision has observed as under:
“16. A perusal of Section 124 of the Act along with the
alleged waiver which is relied upon would show that the
oral SCN cannot be deemed to have been served in this
manner as is being alleged by the Department. If an oral
SCN waiver has to be agreed to by the person concerned,
the same ought to be in the form of a proper declaration,
consciously signed by the person concerned. Even then,
an opportunity of hearing ought to be afforded,
inasmuch as, the person concerned cannot be
condemned unheard in these matters. Printed waivers of
this nature would fundamentally violate rights of
persons who are affected. Natural justice is not merely
lip-service. It has to be given effect and complied with in
letter and spirit.
17. The three-pronged waiver which the form contains is
not even decipherable or comprehensible to the common
man. Apart from agreeing as per the said form that the
oral SCN has been served, the person affected has also
waived a right for personal hearing. Such a form in fact
shocks the conscience of the Court, that too in cases of
the present nature where travellers/tourists are made to
run from pillar to post for seeking release of detained
goods.
[…]
19. This Court is of the opinion that the printed waiver
of SCN and the printed statement made in the request forSignature Not Verified W.P.(C) 12741/2025 & W.P.(C) 12816/2025 Page 8 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:38:54
release of goods cannot be considered or deemed to be an
oral SCN, in compliance with Section 124. The SCN in
the present case is accordingly deemed to have not been
issued and thus the detention itself would be contrary to
law. The order passed in original without issuance of SCN
and without hearing the Petitioner, is not sustainable in
law. The Order-in-Original dated 29th November, 2024 is
accordingly set-aside.”
13. Under these circumstances, in fact, the detention itself is contrary to
law as the impugned orders have been passed without affording a hearing to
the Petitioners.
14. The appeal having been filed way back in August, 2024, till now no
hearing has been fixed and no notice has been issued to the Petitioner. Under
these circumstances, since the impugned order itself is unsustainable as being
in violation of the principles of Natural Justice, the appeal is rendered
infructuous.
15. However, considering the fact that the impugned orders have been
passed way back in June, 2024 and the Petitioners have chosen to challenge
the same, almost one year later, the impugned orders having permitted the
redemption of the seized goods for the purpose of re-export, the Court is
inclined to implement the impunged orders. Accordingly, the following
directions are being issued:
(i) The fine of Rs.1,95,000/- and penalty of Rs.1,30,000/- in W.P.
(C) 12741/2025 and fine of Rs.1,90,000/- and penalty of Rs.1,25,000/-
in W.P. (C) 12816/2025 be paid by the Petitioners, in terms of the
impugned orders dated 3rd June, 2024 and 5th June, 2024.
(ii) Upon the payment of the said amounts, all the seized items shall
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 12741/2025 & W.P.(C) 12816/2025 Page 9 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:38:54
be released to the Petitioners, for the purposes of re-export.
(iii) Under these circumstances, the warehouse charges are also
waived.
(iv) The Petitioners shall appear before the Customs Department on
8th September, 2025. Let the Petitioner contact the following nodal
officer who shall assist the Petitioner with requisite procedure:
● Officer: Mr. Sandeep Lamba, Superintendent, Customs
● Address: Office of Commissioner, Customs, IGI Airport,
Terminal – 3, New Delhi
● Mob. No: 7405345000
● Email: [email protected]
16. The present petitions are allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
17. Dasti.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
AUGUST 25, 2025/dk/ck
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 12741/2025 & W.P.(C) 12816/2025 Page 10 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2025
18:38:54
[ad_2]
Source link