W.P.(C)/14402/2025 of MAHESH MALKANI Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 17[th]September, 2025

+W.P.(C) 14402/2025MAHESH MALKANI.....PetitionerThrough:Dr. Ashutosh, Ms. Fatima and Mr.Pravej, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.....RespondentThrough:Ms. Atul Tripathi, SSC with Mr.Shubham Mishra, Adv. for CBIC. (M:[REDACTED])

CORAM:JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1.This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2.The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging theimpugned order dated 30[th]January, 2025 passed by the Office ofCommissioner of Customs, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.

3.The Petitioner, who is resident of Dubai, had travelled to India on 7[th]March, 2024. Upon his arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, NewDelhi, one Rolex watch (hereinafter, ‘the detained article’), which he waswearing, was detained on the allegation of non-declaration vide detentionreceipt dated 7th March, 2024.

4.Thereafter, an Order-in-Original has already been passed in this matterpermitting redemption vide order dated 30[th]January, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘theimpugned order’).The operative portion of the impugned order reads asunder:

ORDER

i) I deny the 'Free Allowance' if any, admissible to the PaxMr. Mahesh Malkani for not declaring the detained goodsto the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the CustomsOfficer at Green Channel who intercepted him and recoveredthe detained goods from him.ii) I order confiscation of "Rolex Watch Model No.126610LVvaluedatRs.13,48,500/-"detainedvide"DR/INDEL4/07.03.2024/003944 dt. 07.03.2024" underSection 111(d), 111(j), 111(l) & 111(m) of the Customs Act,1962.

iii) I give an option to redeem, the goods confiscated, above,--for reexport, on payment of fine of Rs. 1,80,000/ (RupeesOne Lakh Eighty Thousand only) being holder of "ResidentIdentity Card ID No. 784-1984- 4594800-7 bearing issuingdate 30.11.2024 & Expiry date 29.11.2026 issued by United"Arab Emirates. I allow redemption of the detained goodswithin 120 days of issue of this order under Section 125(3) ofthe Customs Act, 1962). The redemption is allowed after thecompletion of legal formalities in this regard and also onfulfillmentofanyregulatoryclearances/approvals/payments, as required. The offer of redemption, if accepted,shall be subject to condition that the Passenger shall notdispute the identity and valuation of the goods. The offer ofredemption shall cease after 120 days of the receipt of thisorder.iv)I also impose penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees OneLakh Fifty Thousand only) on the Pax Mr. Mahesh Malkaniunder section 112 (a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.”

5.As per the above impugned order, the Petitioner was permitted toredeem the detained article by paying fine of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the purposeof re-export. However, the redemption was to be undertaken by the Petitionerwithin 120 days of the receipt of the impugned order which have now lapsed.6.The Court has perused the impugned order. There appears to be some

error in paragraph 8.4 of the impugned order, as pointed out by the ld. Counselfor Petitioner. The said paragraph is set out below:

“8.4 Further, provision of section 125 of the Customs Act,1962 reproduced at Para 8.1(xviii) above is referred. ThePax had adopted the wrong channel for import of goods aspassenger baggage, in violation of provisions laid down inthis regard. Goods are clearly in commercial quantity andcannot possibly be for personal use. However, since the Paxis an Indian National working in Dubai and has valid"Resident Identity Card ID No. 784-1984-4594800-7bearing issuing date 30.11.2024 & Expiry date 29.11.2026issued by United Arab Emirates". It is felt that the samecould be allowed for re-export on payment of redemptionfine and penalty. Thus, though I have proposed forconfiscation of the detained goods, I have considered viewthat the goods may be allowed to be redeemed for re-exportpurpose only, to the Pax, being holder an "Resident IdentityCard ID No. 784-1984-4594800-7 bearing issuing date30.11.2024 & Expiry date 29.11.2026 issued by United ArabEmirates", on payment of redemption fine under theprovisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.”

7.Clearly, this Court is of the view that one Rolex watch cannot be heldto be commercial quantity and there is no reason as to why the same cannotbe kept for personal use. However, considering the fact that the option ofredemption was given to the Petitioner, the Petitioner shall now pay theredemption fine by 31[st]October, 2025 and redeem the detained article inaccordance with the impugned order.

8.The adjudicating authority is cautioned to ensure that in future, sucherrors do not occur in the orders which are passed by the adjudicatingauthority.

9.In the facts of this case, warehousing charges shall be liable to be paid

by the Petitioner, as applicable on the date of detention.

10.The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any,are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUDGE

SEPTEMBER 17, 2025dj/ss

SHAIL JAINJUDGE