WRIT PETITION 5628/2025

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 5628/2025TUBA SHAD.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. S.Vijay Kanth, Advocate.versus

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.....RespondentThrough:Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocate.

CORAM:JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

%30.04.2025

1.This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 25654/2025 (for exemption)

2.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposedof.

W.P.(C) 5628/2025

3.The present petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner– TubaShad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order-In-Originaldated14[th]January,2025bearingno.2165/004918/11.08.2024/WH/2024-25 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’)passed by the Office of Commissioner of Customs.

4.The case of the Petitioner herein is that she is an Indian citizen and wastravelling from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to Delhi on 11[th]August, 2024. Upon herarrival at the IGI Airport, Terminal-3, the Petitioner was detained by theCustoms Officials.

5.Upon such detention, the Petitioner’s gold articles, i.e., three goldbangles weighing 50 grams each were seized. The same were detained vide

W.P.(C) 5628/2025Page 1 of 4

detention receipt number 4918 dated 11th August, 2024 and the appraisementof the articles also took place before the Petitioner.

6.The Petitioner appears to have signed standard waiver of show causeand personal hearing due to which neither the show cause notice was issuedupon her, nor was personal hearing notice sent to her.

7.Subsequently, the impugned order has been passed, directing absoluteconfiscation of all the three gold articles of the Petitioner.

8.Mr. S.Vijay Kanth, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that thePetitioner is 20 years old and was recently married. The three gold bangleswhich have been seized from the Petitioner were given as gifts duringmarriage. Further, the Petitioner had gone to Saudi Arabia with her husbandfor performing religious ceremony– Umrah. Relevant portion of the petitionis extracted herein below:

“2. That the Petitioner is housewife and law-abiding citizen

of lndia. That the Petitioner along with her Husband went toSaudi Arab for Umrah and returned on 11.08.2024.Saudi Arab for Umrah and returned on 11.08.2024.

7. That it is pertinent to mention that the jewelry detained by theRespondent from the Petitioner was her personal jewelry. Thatthe Petitioner was given the said jewelry as Hiba (gift) by herparents in her

marriage. That the said jewelry carries significant value for thePetitioner as it is reminder of her parents love and devotiontowards her. That the Petitioner regularly wears the saidjewelry on important occasions or festivals. Photographs of thePetitioner wearing the said jewelry is being annexed herewithas Annexure- P3.”

9.Clearly, perusal of the photographs filed by the Petitioner and the factthat the seized articles are three gold bangles weighing 50 grams each, thereremains no doubt in the mind of the Court that the same were personal effects

W.P.(C) 5628/2025

of the Petitioner.

10.Moreover, in the case of Mr Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner ofCustoms, New Delhi, 2025:DHC-1162-DB and Amit Kumar v. TheCommissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:751-DB this Court has discussedvarious issues arising in such cases where the goods have been detained bythe Customs Department, including the issue of personal jewellery being partof personal effects under the Baggage Rules, 2016 and the invalidity of thewaiver of show cause notice and personal hearing by way of pre-printedwaiver form. The relevant extracts of the said decisions are as under:

i.MrMakhinderChopravs.Commissionerof

Customs, New Delhi, 2025:DHC-1162-DB

“17.A conspectus of the above decisions andprovisions would lead to the conclusion thatjewellerythat is bona fide in personal use by the tourist wouldnot be excluded from the ambit of personal effectsas defined under the Baggage Rules.Further, theDepartment is required to make distinction between‘jewellery’and‘personaljewellery’whileconsidering seizure of items for being in violation ofthe Baggage Rules.

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.”

W.P.(C) 5628/2025

Page 3 of 4

ii. 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 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 and thusthe detention itself would be contrary to law. Theorder passed in original without issuance of SCN andwithout hearing the Petitioner, is not sustainable inlaw. The Order-in-Original dated 29th November,2024 is accordingly set-aside”

11.Considering the fact that the gold bangles seized from the Petitioner aremerely personal effects of the Petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, thedetention itself would be contrary to law.

12.Accordingly, the detained articles of the Petitioner are directed to bereleased within four weeks. The impugned order is thus set aside. Storagecharges shall, however, be paid by the Petitioner.

13.The petition is disposed of in said terms. Pending applications, if any,are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J

APRIL 30, 2025v/ss

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

W.P.(C) 5628/2025