Saidan Vs Commissioner of Customs

¶1

$~38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11910/2025 SAIDAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Pandey and Mr. Ajay Singh, Advs.

¶3

versus

¶4

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, Mr. Harsh Singhal and Mr. Suraj Shekhar, Advs.

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶6

O R D E R % 08.08.2025

¶7

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶8

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Saidan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking quashing of the detention of the 4 gold bangles, collectively weighing 175 grams which was seized by the Customs Department on 13th February, 2024 vide detention receipt bearing no. DR/INDEL4/13-02-2024/003771.

¶9

The case of the Petitioner is that she had arrived from Jeddah to New Delhi on 13^th February, 2024. Upon her arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, the Petitioner was intercepted by the concerned officials of the Customs Department and her 4 gold bangles were detained. According to the Petitioner, she was forced to sign the waiver of the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘ SCN ’).

¶10

Thereafter, the Order-in-Original was passed on 25^th April, 2024 in the following terms:

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 13:06:49

¶13

“ ORDER

¶14

i) I deny the 'Free Allowance' if any, admissible to the Pax Ms Saidan for not declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted her and recovered the detained item from her.

¶15

ii) I declare the passenger Ms Saidan as an "ineligible Passenger" for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended).

¶16

(iii) I order confiscation of “Four Gold bangles having average purity 981 with gross and net weight 175 grams having Assessable value Rs.10,22,098/-“ recovered from the Pax Ms Saidan and detained vide DR No. DR/INDEL4/l3.02.2024/003771 dated 13.02.2024 under section 111(d), 111(j) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962;

¶17

(iv) I give an option to redeem, the goods confiscated above on payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) along-with applicable rate of Customs duty on tariff valuation as on the date of detention of goods. I allow release of the detained goods within 120 days of issue of this order under Section 125(3) of Customs Act, 1962. The redemption is to be allowed after the completion of legal formalities in this regard and also fulfillment of any regulatory clearances/approvals required. The offer of redemption, if accepted, shall be subject to condition that the Pax shall not dispute the identity and valuation of the detained goods. The offer of redemption shall cease after 'One Hundred Twenty Days' from date of the receipt of this order;

¶18

(v) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) on the Pax Ms Saidan under section 112 (a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.”

¶19

The Customs Department had challenged the said Order-in-Orginal, however, the said appeal has been rejected vide Order-in-Appeal dated 29^th

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 13:06:49

¶22

May, 2025 in the following terms:

¶23

“

¶24

Order

¶25

6.0 In light of the discussions and findings above, I reject the appeal of the appellant i.e. department and uphold the OIO No. 1405/003771/13.02.2024/WH/2024-25 dated 25-042024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, T- 3, IGI Airport, New Delhi. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.”

¶26

Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that even though the appeal has been dismissed, the four gold bangles of the Petitioner are not being released. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Petitioner is willing to abide by the Order-in-Original.

¶27

In view thereof, let the Order-in-Original dated 25^th April, 2024 be given effect to. Accordingly, let the Petitioner appear before the Customs Department on 19^th August, 2025.

¶28

In the facts of this case and considering the background, the warehouse charges are waived.

¶29

Let the four gold bangles be released within one week after the deposit of all the amounts in terms of the Order-in-Original.

¶30

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

¶31

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J

¶32

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶33

AUGUST 8, 2025 dj/ck

¶34

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 13:06:49

Saidan v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saidan v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaji Leather Exports Prop Rakesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Sales Tax Officer Class 2 and Anr.

Captain Harsha Mahendra Vs Alliance Air Aviation Limited & Anr.

Great River Coy Private Limited Vs Coal India Limited and Ors.

Ropas Logistics Private Limited Vs Coal India Limited & Ors.

Guddi Devi & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sheela Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Jnrb International LLP Vs Commissioner of Customs

Virender Kumar Chopra Vs Raj Kumar Prop

Balaji Leather Exports Prop Rakesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Sales Tax Officer Class 2 and Anr.

M/S New Allied Lpg Appliances Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato, Ward 79 & Ors.

M/S. Trans India Logistics Vs Gsto, WARD-60 & Anr.

Ganpati Polymers through It Proprietor Prop. Ankur Jain Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Another

Bharti Traders through Proprietor Liyaqat Vs Commissioner of Cgst and Service Tax

Nadeem Ahmad Vs Commissioner of Customs