W.P.(C)/11522/2025 of DEVINDER SINGH Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 11522/2025DEVINDER SINGH.....PetitionerThrough:Ms. Richa Kumari, Mr. Pawan, Ms.Aarti Gupta, Mr. Aman Asht & Mr.Prashant Chaudhary, Advs.DEVINDER SINGH.....PetitionerThrough:Ms. Richa Kumari, Mr. Pawan, Ms.Aarti Gupta, Mr. Aman Asht & Mr.Prashant Chaudhary, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.....RespondentThrough:Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Mr. JaiAhuja,Mr.SanidhyaSharma,Mr.Akshay Saxena & Ms. Shivali Saxena,Advs.Through:Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Mr. JaiAhuja,Mr.SanidhyaSharma,Mr.Akshay Saxena & Ms. Shivali Saxena,Advs.

CORAM:JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUSTICE SHAIL JAINO R R%06.08.2025

1.This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2.The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Devinder Singhunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing thedetention receipt No. 53431 dated 20th April, 2021, vide which, one gold kadaand one gold chain of the Petitioner, weighing 116 grams each, has beendetained by the Petitioner.

3.A brief background of the present case is that the Petitioner travelled toDubai for employment purposes. However, he was under continuous medicaltreatment following the surgery for Craniopharyngioma. He returned to Indiawithin two to three days for urgent medical care and at the time when he cameback to India and landed in Delhi, the said goods were seized on 19[th]/ 20[th]April, 2021. The total weight of the items is 116 grams each.

4.The Petitioner is an Indian citizen. He has placed on record various

W.P.(C) 11522/2025

medical documents issued by Max Healthcare and other doctors to show hismedical condition. He has also placed on record photographs to show thatboth items were his personal effects under the Baggage Rules, 2016 and thejewellery has been used by the Petitioner for the past several years.

5.It is observed that the goods of the Petitioner were seized on 20th April,2021. However, no Show Cause Notice has been issued till date. Further, no

Order-in-Original has been passed for the last more than four years.

6.Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the detention of thePetitioner’s goods cannot continue. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitsthat the Petitioner wrote two letters dated 29[th]September, 2021, stating thathe is unable to come for appraisement.

7.This Court has already, in the decision, Dhiren v. Commissioner ofCustoms [W.P. (C) 9951/2025] dated 16th July, 2025, observed thatirrespective of whether the passenger comes for appraisement or not, the samewould not stop the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The relevant portionof the said decision is extracted hereunder:

“6. Repeatedly, this Court notices that one of the reasons beingtaken by the Customs Department for explaining delay or nonissuance of SCN is that the Petitioner does not appear forappraisement.taken by the Customs Department for explaining delay or nonissuance of SCN is that the Petitioner does not appear forappraisement.

7. It is made clear that non appearance of passenger forappraisement of detained goods is not ground for withholdingthe issuance of an SCN in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act,1962.appraisement of detained goods is not ground for withholdingthe issuance of an SCN in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act,1962.

8. Since no SCN has been issued in this matter, the continueddetention would be contrary to law. Let the Respondent seekinstructions in this regard.”detention would be contrary to law. Let the Respondent seekinstructions in this regard.”

8.In any case, under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 without

issuance of Show Cause Notice, continued detention of goods would beillegal. This principle of law has been upheld in catena of judgments, as alsohas been observed recently by this Court in the decision, AbhilashMullentevida v. Commissioner of Customs (2025:DHC:4508-DB), whereinit has been held as under:

“13. Further, in the present case, the fact that no ShowCause Notice has been issued upon the Petitioner is alsonot in dispute. This Court, while deciding upon the issueof non-issuance of Show Cause Notice in various caseshas held that once the goods are detained, it ismandatory to issue Show Cause Notice and afford ahearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed underSection 110 of The Customs Act, 1962, is period of sixmonths and subject to complying with the formalities, afurther extension for period of six months can be takenby the Department for issuing the show cause notice. Inthis case, since no show cause notice has been issued tilldate, the detention is therefore impermissible.”Cause Notice has been issued upon the Petitioner is alsonot in dispute. This Court, while deciding upon the issueof non-issuance of Show Cause Notice in various caseshas held that once the goods are detained, it ismandatory to issue Show Cause Notice and afford ahearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed underSection 110 of The Customs Act, 1962, is period of sixmonths and subject to complying with the formalities, afurther extension for period of six months can be takenby the Department for issuing the show cause notice. Inthis case, since no show cause notice has been issued tilldate, the detention is therefore impermissible.”

9.Moreover, this Court is also convinced after seeing the photographs thatthe gold items are the personal jewellery of the Petitioner.

10.Further, there is no reason for the Court to disbelieve the medicalrecords of the Petitioner which show that he did suffer from serious medicalcondition at the relevant point in time, necessitating his travel back to Indiafrom Dubai.

11.The continued detention is no longer tenable in view of non-issuanceof Show Cause Notice.

12.Accordingly, the goods are directed to be released. In the facts andcircumstances of this case, considering the medical issues faced by the

Petitioner, the warehousing charges are waived.

13.Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any,are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

AUGUST 6, 2025Rahul/rks

SHAIL JAIN, J.

W.P.(C) 11522/2025