W.P.(C)/5136/2025 of DALVINDER SINGH SUDAN Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIDate of decision: 23[rd]April, 2025+W.P.(C) 5136/2025DALVINDER SINGH SUDAN.....PetitionerThrough:Ms. Richa Kumari, Mr. Pawan, Mr.Yatin, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.....RespondentThrough:Mr.PiyushBeriwal,Mr.NikhilKumar, Ms. Jyotsana, Advs. for R-1.

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- Dalvinder SinghSudan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia,seekingissuance of an appropriate writ assailing the detention of the one gold kada ofthe Petitioner detained vide detention receipt no. 005521 dated 29thNovember 2024 (New detention receipt no. 36434 dated 6th March 2025)which is stated to be personal effect 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 ofthe Petitioner. It is also submitted that the Petitioner being Sikh, always

wears this kada. The Petitioner has placed photographs on record as well.5.The detention of the said gold kada took place on 29[th]November, 2024and Show Cause Notice was issued on 20[th]March, 2025 (hereinafter,‘SCN’). The said SCN also records the fact that the Petitioner did not want theSCN and personal hearing and that the case may be decided on merits. Theextract from the said SCN is set out hereinbelow:-

“…he further stated that he had tendered his statementtrue and correct and had given the statement withoutany duress, pressure or threat.Further, he requestedthat he did not want Show Cause Notice and PersonalHearing and his case may be decided on merit.”

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, NewDelhi, 2025:DHC-1162-DB

“17.A conspectus of the above decisions and provisionswould lead to the conclusion thatjewellery that is bona fidein personal use by the tourist would not be excluded from

the ambit of personal effects as defined under the BaggageRules. Further, the Department is required to make adistinction between ‘jewellery’ and ‘personal jewellery’while considering seizure of items for being in violation ofthe Baggage Rules.

xxxxxxxxx

34.Since, the Court has made clear thatthe practice ofmaking tourists sign undertaking in standard formwaiving the show cause notice and personal hearing iscontrary to the provisions of Section 124 of the Act,hereinafter,theCustomsDepartmentisdirectedtodiscontinue the said practice. The Customs Department isexpected to follow the principles of natural justice in eachcase where goods are confiscated in terms of Section 124 ofthe Act.”

AmitKumarv.TheCommissionerofCustoms,

2025:DHC:751-DB

“19. This Court is of the opinion that the printed waiver ofSCN and the printed statement made in the request forrelease of goods cannot be considered or deemed to be anoral SCN, in compliance with Section 124.The SCN in thepresent case is accordingly deemed to have not been issuedand thus the detention itself would be contrary to law. Theorder passed in original without issuance of SCN and withouthearing the Petitioner, is not sustainable in law. The Order-in-Original dated 29th November, 2024 is accordingly set-aside”

7.Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that personal hearing dateshave been fixed and the notice has been communicated to the Petitioner onlyon 22[nd]April, 2025.

8.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.

9.Accordingly, the detention of the gold kada is set aside.10.The Petitioner shall be entitled to release of the gold kada within aperiod of four weeks from today subject to payment of warehouse charges.11.The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending application(s), ifany, also stand disposed of.10.The Petitioner shall be entitled to release of the gold kada within aperiod of four weeks from today subject to payment of warehouse charges.11.The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending application(s), ifany, also stand disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUDGE

APRIL 23, 2025/n/ck

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAJUDGE