W.P.(C)/2957/2025 of AMAL KRISHNA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 10[th]March, 2025

+W.P.(C) 2957/2025, CM APPL. 14010/2025 & CM APPL.14011/2025AMAL KRISHNA.....Petitioner14011/2025AMAL KRISHNA.....Petitioner

Through:Mrs.KavithaKT,Mr.SubashChandran, Mr. Sharat Gopal, Mr.Syam Krishnan, Mr. Akash Awana,Ms. Pinal Pandagare and Mr. SaktiChaurvedi, Advs.Chandran, Mr. Sharat Gopal, Mr.Syam Krishnan, Mr. Akash Awana,Ms. Pinal Pandagare and Mr. SaktiChaurvedi, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through:Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr.Ankit Kumar, Adv.Ankit Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUSTICE 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 Krishnaunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance ofan appropriate writ for setting aside the order dated 7th November, 2024passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Terminal-3, Indira GandhiInternational Airport, New Delhi (hereinafter, the ‘adjudicating authority’)by which, the adjudicating authority has seized the Petitioner’s gold chainweighing 28 grams, valued at Rs. 1,76,488/-.

3.A brief background of the present case as stated in the petition is that

the Petitioner was travelling from the United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’) to Indiato participate in marriage ceremony in Kerala. The Petitioner arrived at theIndira Gandhi International Airport on 9th April, 2024. However, as soon asthe Petitioner reached the airport, he was intercepted and the Petitioner’sjewellery i.e. gold chain weighing 28 grams was seized by the concernedCustom officials.

4.It is the case of the Petitioner that the said jewellery has been worn byhim for his personal use and the same was confiscated by the Customauthorities while he was crossing the green channel.

5.It is further stated in the petition that the Petitioner submitted astatement to the concerned Custom officials dated 9th April, 2024 andthereafter sent letter dated 20th May, 2024 providing details of the detainedjewellery items as also highlighting that the Petitioner is an eligible passengerunder the Baggage Rules, 2016. However, the adjudicating authority passedthe 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 adjudicatingauthority. The same is extracted for ready reference:

“i)I deny the ‘Free Allowance’ if any, admissibleto the Pax Amal Krishna for not declaring thedetained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channelas well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel whointercepted him and recovered the detained goodsfrom him.

ii)I declare the passenger, Amal Krishna, is an“eligiblePassenger”fothepurposeoftheNotification No.50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017(as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (asamended)

iii)I order confiscation of the “One gold chainhaving purity 929, weight 28 grams, valued atRs.1,76,488/-”recoveredfromthePaxAmalKrishnaanddetainedvideDRNo.“DR/INDEL4/10.04.20:l4/52546” dated 10.04.2024under section 111(d), 111(j) and 111(m) of theCustoms Act, 1962;

iv)I give an option to redeem, the goodsconfiscated, above, on payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) under Section125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and allow the same forre-export from India only by the Pax since the Pax isa holder ef valid "Residency permit card ID No. 784-1996-3924636-4, Issuing date 16.02.2024, Expirydate 15.02.2026 issued by United Arab Emirates". Iallow redemption of the detained goods within 120days of issue of this order under Section 125(3) ofthe Customs Act ,1962). The redemption is allowedafter the completion of legal formalities in thisregard and also on fulfillment of any regulatoryclearances/ approvals/ payments, as required. Theoffer of redemption, if accepted, shall be subject tocondition that the Passenger shall not dispute theidentity and valuation of the goods. The offer ofredemption shall cease after 120 days of the receiptof this order.

v)I also impose penalty of Rs.18,000/- (RupeesEighteen Thousand Only) on the Pax Amal Krishnaunder 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, thePetitioner is permitted to redeem the gold chain by paying fine of Rs.25,000/- and incurring an additional penalty of Rs. 18,000/-. In addition, Rs.

250/- per day is being sought as warehousing charges for the gold.

9.The impugned order also records that no show cause notice andpersonal hearing was sought by the Petitioner. The relevant portion of theimpugned order recording the same is extracted hereinunder for readyreference:

“DISCUSSIONS & FINDINGS

8. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case andconsidered the submissions/ admissions made by thePassenger in his statement dated 10.04.2024., The Paxhas also requested waiver of Show Cause Notice andPersonal 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 thePetitioner has been worn regularly by him and the same ought to be returnedto the Petitioner. The same are part of his personal effects.

11.A photograph of the Petitioner wearing the said jewellery has beenplaced on record. The wedding card of the Petitioner, showing the date ofmarriage as 21[st]April, 2024 has also been placed on record. perusal of thephotograph along with the wedding card would itself show that the Petitioneris bona fide passenger who was travelling to India to attend weddingceremony.

12.It is not in dispute as has been recorded by the adjudicating authoritythat the Petitioner himself is UAE resident with proper resident ID. Thegold chain has been valued at Rs. 1,76,488/-.

13.The Petitioner being non-resident is fully entitled to the benefitprovided to an eligible passenger under the Baggage Rules, 2016. The goodsconstitute personal effects of the Petitioner and could not have been seized in

the manner the Custom authorities have.

14.This Court has now pronounced several orders/judgments, followingvarious judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, wherein it has beenheld clearly that if the gold items seized are personal jewellery, the samewould not be liable to be confiscated. The few orders/judgments passed bythis Court in this regard are as under:

Nathan Narayanswamy v. Commissioner of Customs, [DelhiHigh Court, W.P.(C) 6855/2023 dated 15th September, 2023]High Court, W.P.(C) 6855/2023 dated 15th September, 2023]

FaridaAliyevav.CommissionerofCustoms,(2024:DHC:9533-DB).(2024:DHC:9533-DB).

Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v. Union Of India & Ors.(2025:DHC:1444-DB).(2025:DHC:1444-DB).

15.Moreover, in the present case, show cause notice has not been issuedto the Petitioner and no personal hearing has been afforded.

16.The waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing is not inaccordance with law as held recently in several judgments, including thefollowing: -

(i)Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs (2025:DHC:751-DB)DHC:751-DB)

(ii)Mr. Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs, NewDelhi, (2025: DHC:1162-DB)Delhi, (2025: DHC:1162-DB)

iii)Mohamed Shamiuddeen v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors.(2025: DHC:1079-DB).(2025: DHC:1079-DB).

17.The impugned order dated 7[th]November, 2024 passed by theadjudicating authority is accordingly quashed. No penalty or redemption fineshall be collected from the Petitioner. No warehousing charges shall also be

liable to be collected from the Petitioner.The charges, if any, alreadydeposited shall be refunded to the Petitioner.

18.The gold item of the Petitioner seized by the Custom officials in thepresent case, may be released within two weeks to the Petitioner, or anyauthorised representative after verifying their identity.

19.The petition is disposed of. All pending applications, if any, are alsodisposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUDGE

MARCH 10, 2025dj/rks

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAJUDGE