W.P.(C)/4262/2025 of BINDU GOVIND Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

1.This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 19707/2025 (for exemption)

2.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4262/2025

3.The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Bindu Govindunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking issuance ofan appropriate writ for setting aside the detention by the AssistantCommissioner of Customs, Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport,New Delhi which was done vide detention receipt dated 10th April, 2024bearing No.DR/INDEL4/10.04.2024/0052549, whereby Petitioner’s four

gold bangles and two gold chains old chains, weighing total of 159 gramshave been seized.

4.A brief background of the present case, as stated in the petition is thatthe Petitioner is an Indian Passport holder bearing no. Y8799992 having aresidency permit issued by the United Arab Emirates (hereinafter ‘UAE’)bearing I.D. No. 784-1978-7041871-8 having issue date of 27th May, 2024and expiry date of 27th May, 2026. As per the Petitioner she has her place ofresidence in India in Thrissur District, Kerala and regularly travels back toIndia to meet her family and relatives.

5.It is the case of the Petitioner that she and her family arrived at IGIAirport Terminal 3, New Delhi, by flight AI 996 on 9th April,2024. Despiteusing the green channel, the Petitioner was intercepted by the CustomsOfficials and Petitioner’s jewellery that she is stated to have been wearing atthat time, were detained. Details of the same are as under:

6.It is further stated by the Petitioner that the above mentionedconfiscated jewellery were given to her by her parents as gift for herremembrance of her family traditions and customary roots. It is submitted thatthe Petitioner, since her younger days, has regularly been wearing the saidgold jewellery and the same has been part of her attire since then.

7.Issue Notice. Mr. Aditya Singla, ld. SSC accepts notice.

8.Mr. Singla, ld. SSC Counsel submits that in the present case, an Order-in-Originaldated06thDecember,2024bearingNo.2110/0052549/10.04.2024/WH/2024-25 has already been passed by theOffice of Commissioner of Customs, I.G.I. Airport, T-3 Terminal, New Delhi.Hence, the Petitioner may avail of the remedies in accordance with lawagainst the said Order-in-Original.

9.A copy of the said Order-in-Original is handed over in Court. The sameis taken on record.

10.A perusal of the Order-in-Original dated 06th December, 2024 revealsthat no Show Cause Notice was issued upon the Petitioner in the present casewith respect to the detention of her seized gold jewellery. Additionally, evenan opportunity for personal hearing was not granted to the Petitioner.

11.The order in original also reveals that statement of the Petitionerunder Section 108 of the Customs Act,1962 has been recorded, dated 10thApril, 2024 ,which clearly does not appear to be voluntary statement. Therelevant portion of the Order-in-Original is set out below:-

“2. The passenger Bindhu Govind (hereinafter referred as 'thePax') (D.O.B. 14.11.1978) holding Indian passport No.Y8799992 arrived from UAE to IGI Airport Terminal-3, NewDelhi by flight Al 916 dated 10.04.2024 and opted for GreenChannel. She was intercepted by the Customs Officer after shehad already crossed the Green Channel and during her personal& baggage search "02 yellow metal chain and 04 yellow metalkada appearing to made of gold having collective weight 159grams" were found and the same were detained vide DetentionReceipt(DR)No.DR/INDEL4/10.04.2024/0052549dated10.04.2024 with remarks "Green Channel Violation"

3. The Pax tendered her statement dated 10.04.2024 underSection 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in which she admitted thatshe had arrived from UAE to IGI Airport Terminal-3, New Delhiby the flight Al 916 dated: 10.04.2024; that she was interceptedby the Customs Officer after she had already crossed the GreenChannel and during the DFMD the said items i.e. " 02 yellowmetal chain and 04 yellow metal kada appearing to be made ofgold having collective weight 159 grams" were recovered fromhim. Also, in her statement dated 10.04.2024, it was submitted bythe Pax that the said recovered goods belonged to her; that sheadmitted the act of omission and commission on her part; thatshe was well aware of the facts that there was Customs Duty onimport of above goods/ gold; that she intentionally had notdeclared the recovered items; that she would be agreed with thedescription and quantity assessed by the department and readyto pay the Customs duty along with fine and penalty asapplicable. She further stated that she had tendered herstatement true and correct, without any duress, pressure orthreat. Further, she requested that she did not want Show CauseNotice and Personal Hearing.

4. The pax visited this office and submitted letter dated22.5.2024 wherein the pax had inter- alia stated that she hadarrived from UAE to IGI Airport Terminal-3, New Delhi on10.04.2024 and brought "02 yellow metal chain and 04 yellowmetal kada appearing to be made of gold having collectiveweight 159 grams". The Pax has submitted copy of UAEresident ID No 784-1978-7041871-8, issuing date 27.05.2024,expiry date 27.05.2026, issued by United Arab Emirates in hersupport. She further requested that the said goods may beallowed for re-export as she is ready to pay fine and penalty aftertaking lenient view as she had brought the gold for her personaluse. She submitted that she did not want any show cause noticeand personal hearing in the matter.”

12.Further, the operative part of the order is extracted herein below:

“i)I deny the ‘Free Allowance’ if any, admissible to the PaxMs. Bindu Govind for not declaring the detained goods to theProper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer atGreen Channel who intercepted her and recovered the detainedgoods from her.

ii)I declare the passenger, Ms. Bindhu Govind, is an“eligible Passenger” for the purpose of the Notification No.50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read withBaggage Rules, 2016 (as amended).iii)I order confiscation of the “Two gold chain purity 940having weight 118 grams valued at Rs. 7,52,578/- and four goldbangles purity 937 having weight 41 grams value at Rs.2,60,654/- (total wight 159 grams and total value at Rs.10,13,232/-” recovered from the Pax Ms. Bindu Govind anddetained vide DR No. DR/INDEL4/10.04.2024/0052549 dated10.04.2024 under Section 111(d), 111(j) and 111(m) of theCustoms Act, 1962;

iv)I give an option to redeem, the goods confiscated, above,on payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rs. One lakh FiftyThousand Only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 andallow the same for re-export from India only by the Pax, since,the passenger is an Indian National having passport No.Y8799992 and has valid UAE resident ID No 784-1978-7041871-8, issuing date 27.05.2024, expiry date 27.05.2026,issued by United Arab Emirate. I allow redemption of thedetained goods within 120 days of issue of this order underSection 125(3) of the Customs Act, 1962). The redemption isallowed after the completion of legal formalities in this regardand also on fulfillment of any regulatory clearances/ approvals/payments, as required. The offer of redemption, if accepted, shallbe subject to condition that the Passenger shall not dispute theidentity and valuation of the goods. The offer of redemption shallcease after 120 days of the receipt of this order.v) I also impose penalty of Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rs. One Lakh FifteenThousand Only) on the Pax Ms. Bindu Govind under Section112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.”

13.In the opinion of this Court, since no Show Cause Notice was issued to

the Petitioner in the present matter and no opportunity for personal hearingwas granted, the same is not in accordance with law and would be contrary tothe previous decisions of this Court including:

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

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

14.This Court has also 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, [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.In fact, even in the connected petitions of the family members of thePetitioner, this Court has directed for release of the confiscated articles of thePetitioner on the same grounds of non-issuance of show cause notice andabsence of personal hearing to the Petitioner. The said petitions filed by thefamily members of the Petitioner are:

Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union of India & Ors. ( W.P.(C)2784/2025) decided on 10th March,2025:2784/2025) decided on 10th March,2025:

Govind Vennankot Chandrasekharan v. Assistant Commissioner of

Customs (W.P.(C) 2568/2025) decided on 27th March, 2025.

16.Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the detention of

Petitioner’s gold jewellery is illegal and the Order-in-Original passed inpursuance to such detention is not sustainable.

17.Hence, the said detention as well as the Order-in-Original dated 06thDecember, 2024, is set aside. The Petitioner’s gold jewellery shall be releasedwithin four weeks, either directly to the Petitioner or to an AuthorisedRepresentative. Storage charges shall also stand waived of.

18.Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pendingapplication(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUDGE

APRIL 7, 2025/nd/ss

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAJUDGE