WRIT PETITION 5040/2025

Signature Not Verified

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 28[th]April, 2025

W.P.(C) 5040/2025

DALJEET SINGH.....PetitionerThrough:Ms. Richa Kumari, Mr. Yatin Bhutaniand Mr. Pawan, Advs.versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.....RespondentThrough:Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Mr. Nikhil KumarChaubey and Ms. Jyotsna Vyas, Advs.for R-1. (M:[REDACTED])

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- Daljeet Singhunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance ofan appropriate writ assailing the detention of the one gold kada of thePetitionerdetainedvidedetentionreceiptno.DR/INDEL4/29-11-2024/005522 dated 29th November 2024 which is stated to be personaleffect of the Petitioner.

3.The case of the Petitioner is that he was travelling from Dubai as atourist via flight no. SG-12 and arrived at the Indira Gandhi InternationalAirport, New Delhi on 29th November 2024. During the said travel, thePetitioner was stated to be wearing 22 carat gold kada weighing 60 grams.4.According to the Petitioner, the same was used as personal effect of

W.P.(C) 5040/2025

the Petitioner. It is also submitted that the Petitioner being Sikh, alwayswears this kada. The Petitioner has placed photographs on record as well.

5.The Petitioner is also stated to have signed pre-printed standard formrecording that the Petitioner has requested not to receive the Show CauseNotice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) and personal hearing and that the case may bedecided on merits.

6.Clearly, perusal of the photographs and the fact that it is one Kadawhich is usually worn by persons like the Petitioner who are Sikhs, leaves nodoubt in the mind of the Court that the same was personal effect of thePetitioner.Moreover,inthecasesofMrMakhinderChopravs.Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2025:DHC-1162-DB and AmitKumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:751-DB this Court hasdiscussed various issues arising in such cases where the goods have beendetained from tourist by the Customs Department, including the issue ofpersonal jewellery being part of personal effects under the Baggage Rules,2016 and waiver of SCN and personal hearing by way of preprinted waiverform. The relevant extracts of the said decisions are as under:

“Mr Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner of Customs,

New Delhi, 2025:DHC-1162-DB

“17.A conspectus of the above decisions andprovisions would lead to the conclusion thatjewellery that is bona fide in personal use by thetourist would not be excluded from the ambit ofpersonal effects as defined under the BaggageRules. Further, the Department is required to makea distinction between ‘jewellery’ and ‘personaljewellery’ while considering seizure of items forbeing in violation of the Baggage Rules.provisions would lead to the conclusion thatjewellery that is bona fide in personal use by thetourist would not be excluded from the ambit ofpersonal effects as defined under the BaggageRules. Further, the Department is required to makea distinction between ‘jewellery’ and ‘personaljewellery’ while considering seizure of items forbeing in violation of the Baggage Rules.

Signature Not Verified

xxxxxxxxx

34.Since, the Court has made clear thatthepractice of making tourists sign undertaking in astandard form waiving the show cause notice andpersonal hearing is contrary to the provisions ofSection 124 of the Act,hereinafter, the CustomsDepartment is directed to discontinue the saidpractice. The Customs Department is expected tofollow the principles of natural justice in each casewhere goods are confiscated in terms of Section 124of the Act.”

Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs,

2025:DHC:751-DB

“19.This Court is of the opinion that the printedwaiver of SCN and the printed statement made inthe request for release of goods cannot beconsidered or deemed to be an oral SCN, incompliance with Section 124.The SCN in thepresent case is accordingly deemed to have not beenissued and thus the detention itself would becontrary to law. The order passed in originalwithout issuance of SCN and without hearing thePetitioner, is not sustainable in law. The Order-in-Original dated 29th November, 2024 is accordinglyset-aside”

7.Considering the fact that the gold kada seized is merely personaleffect of the Petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the detention itself wouldbe contrary to law.

8.Accordingly, the detention of the gold kada is set aside.

9.The Petitioner shall be entitled to release of the gold kada within aperiod of four weeks from today subject to payment of warehouse charges.

W.P.(C) 5040/2025

Signature Not Verified

10.The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending application(s), ifany, also stand disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUDGE

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAJUDGE

APRIL 28, 2025/dk/ck

W.P.(C) 5040/2025

Page 4 of 4