W.P.(C)/4531/2025 of TURABEK RAKHIMOV Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 4531/2025

TURABEK RAKHIMOV

.....Petitioner

Through:Ms. Richa Kumari, Mr. Yatin Bhutani& Mr. Pawan, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

.....Respondent

Through:Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms.Suhani Mathu, Mr. Jai Ahuja & Mr.Akshay Saxena, Advs.

CORAM:JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

09.04.2025

1.This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2.The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- TurabekRakhimov under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seekingrelease of the gold items weighing 195 grams (hereinafter, ‘gold items’) whichwere seized by the Respondent- Commissioner of Customs vide DetentionReceipt No. 2046 dated 9th June 2023 ( New Detention Receipt No.69780dated 10th August 2023) (hereinafter, ‘detention receipt’)

3.The case of the Petitioner is that he is citizen of Uzbekistan. ThePetitioner was detained by the Customs Officers on 9[th]June, 2023 at IGIAirport, New Delhi when he was coming to India and the following gold itemswere seized vide issuing of detention receipt:

i)One gold chain

ii)Three gold rings

iii)One bracelet.

4.According to the Petitioner, after the detention receipt was issued, thePetitioner never received any Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’). Thus,the present petition has been filed seeking release of the goods items.

5.Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that no SCN was issued andno personal hearing was granted as there was waiver for the same which wassigned by the Petitioner. According to the ld. Counsel, an Order-in-Originalhas been passed on 11[th]August, 2023 which has been communicated to thePetitioner. But the mode of communication is unknown.

6.Considering that the stand of the Petitioner is that no SCN and nopersonal hearing was given, the Order-in-Original is not sustainable inasmuchas the same would be contrary to the principles of natural justice. This hasbeen so held by this Court repeatedly in various orders including the order ofthis Court in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, (2025: DHC:

751-DB) where it was observed as under:

“16. perusal of Section 124 of the Act along withthe alleged waiver which is relied upon would showthat the oral SCN cannot be deemed to have beenserved in this manner as is being alleged by theDepartment. If an oral SCN waiver has to be agreedto by the person concerned, the same ought to be inthe form of proper declaration, consciously signedby the person concerned. Even then, an opportunityof hearing ought to be afforded, inasmuch as, theperson concerned cannot be condemned unheard inthese matters. Printed waivers of this nature wouldfundamentally violate rights of persons who areaffected. Natural justice is not merely lip-service. Ithas to be given effect and complied with in letter andspirit.

xxx

19. This Court is of the opinion that the printedwaiver of SCN and the printed statement made in therequest for release of goods cannot be considered ordeemed to be an oral SCN, in compliance withSection 124. The SCN in the present case isaccordingly deemed to have not been issued andthus the detention itself would be contrary to law.The order passed in original without issuance ofSCN and without hearing the Petitioner, is notsustainable in law. The Order-in-Original dated29th November, 2024 is accordingly set-aside.”

7.Moreover, considering the fact that the Petitioner is foreign nationaland the weight of the goods, the gold items could also be considered aspersonal effects of the Petitioner.

8.Under these circumstances, the Respondent is directed to release thegold items to the Petitioner within period of one week.

9.In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Petitioner shallbe charged only 50% of the storage charges.10.Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any,are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J

APRIL 9, 2025Rahul/ck

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J