Priyanka Sehgal Vs Commissioner of Customs

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Priyanka Sehgal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a nter i , seeking release of one gold chain, weighing 102 grams and two gold bangles, collectively weighing 200 grams (hereinafter, ‘gold items’ ) seized by the Customs Department vide detention receipt no. DR/INDEL4/29.02.2024/003905 dated 29th February, 2024.

¶10

The Petitioner, who is a resident of Dwarka, Delhi, was travelling with her husband and infant child from Dubai on 29th February, 2024. She was wearing two gold items, i . , one gold chain and two gold bangles. Upon arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, the Petitioner was intercepted by the concerned officials of the Customs Department and the said

¶11

Page 1 of

¶12

gold items were seized by the Customs Department after issuing a detention receipt.

¶13

Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was forced to sign a waiver of Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’ ) and no personal hearing was granted by the Adjudicating Authority. The Order-in-Original was passed on 23^rd April, 2024 in the following terms:

¶14

“ORDER

¶15

hPax M. et b s fny,dm ia c lo wFrA ' yth en i) Id
nk Sehgl for a Priy ot d n clarigth e de taings to the o
op e P r icO fat RdC hnlse ot wCumOicr f
at Grn Cha e el who in n rcpd her and te covd the re
n mf i a det om he. r
i ) I dclar the pa e ngr Ms. Priy se nk Sehgal as an a
b Pa "inelgsr f o th e p urs oft he Ni cano.
/2175 0 - tom Cu s ate 3 d 6217 (as am 0. n) read with de
d ,2016(mn s Rul age B
( i ) I ode r sat of icon f One gold chain having averg
purity 92 with gros and net weight 102 grams having
Aseabl value Rs.5,872/ - , Two gold bangles having
averg purity 921 with gros and net weight 20 grams
having Aseabl value Rs.10,6548/ - , toal Aseabl
valu e ofal goditems Rs. 16,5240/ - vd fmthe ore c
Pax Ms Priynk Sehgal and a tain vide DR No. de
35 429.0 INEL /D R ate d 4 under .02 9
fhCuA962; m ja on 1(d),sect i
dbvo t ea fi os cn m,hg ed r t no p) Igea( iv
0 iRs.2 , 45 of t en paym - (RupLakhfrtyTw oes - five
d an us o thy)g l - hw it aple cbr o fCmdyn us
if r ta vluonas onth e dat o f di etno f gds.I aow l
lar e se ofh e dt ng i as wthin120 daysof i o ueof this s
de under Section 125(3) of Cuo r tom Act, 1962. The s
dmption is to be ar e owed after the c l mpletin of o ega l
egulto yr n a uimet of s ad nl g r nh ites formal
ov ps /n clear quid. The o re er of r f dmption, if e
ptd, sh acelbe sujc to ithn dca teP a x sh l not

¶16

Page 2 of

¶17

te dispuh nt y id e ao n fvluti e dt haings. The o er of ro f dmption sha e l cas after 'One Hun e re Twenty d p·; i c dteh m fro y s D a ' 65 0 nty fRs.1 , pe im also (v) I - (Rups OnLakh e sixty hglundr e nk SdOly) onthePaxMsPriy a - n five thousa

¶18

section 112 (a) and 112(b) of 5. As per the above Order-in-Original, the Petitioner has been granted the option to redeem the goods subject to a fine of Rs. 2,45,000/- and penalty of Rs.1,65,000/-.

¶19

This Order-in-Original was challenged by the Customs Department wherein the Appellate Authority has dismissed the said appeal on 26^th May, 2025. Moreover, as per the Order-in-Original, the gold items of the Petitioner were not of the purest form. The relevant portion of the said Order-in-Appeal reads as under:

¶20

Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he seeks implementation of the Order-in-Original.

¶21

Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Customs Department is contemplating to file a revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962.

¶22

Heard. It is seen from the record that the Customs Department did not appear before the Appellate Authority. However, the Petitioner had appeared before the Appellate Authority.

¶23

The first and foremost thing is that in the present case, the Petitioner was not given an SCN and no personal hearing was granted which is mandatory in terms of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. This Court has held repeatedly

¶24

Page 3 of

¶25

that standard pre-printed waivers of Show Cause Notice and personal hearing would not be valid in law. The same has been held in Amit Kumar v. The

¶26

Comisner fCustom, 205:DH71 - DB. The relevant portion of the

¶27

said order reads as under:

¶28

“16. A perusal of Section 124 of the Act along with the
alegd wivrhcs eliduponwsh taeorl
SCN canotbedm tohavebn srdith maner
as ibengald ytheDparmn. Iforal SCNwive
has tobegrdy person cd,thamug
to beinhfrmapdcl, onsiuyge
by the person conerd. Even then, an oprtuniy of
hearing ought to be aforde, inasmuch as, the person
conerd atb condemuhari tesm aters.
Printed wavsof thisnaure woldfunamety viol
rights of person who are afectd. Naturl justice is not
merly ip servic. Ithas obegivnefctandompliewth -
in letradsp .
17. T he tr - w dong er pva i c h e f t rmc ois a n ot
vn d e ciphrabl or compr e hnsibl to the c e n man. om
Apat fom r in sp ag r e e r thsaid form th a eoral SCN
has bn e vd, sr hp t on e cd h afs lo wived right a
for personal hearing. Such a form in fact shock the
consie of the Court, tha to in case of the presnt
nature whvls/oimdrun fopila
to psfrekinglad .
[ .
19. This Courtis ofthe opintha eprintd waveof
SCN and the printed staemn made in the requst for
relas ofgds canotbe considrr demto be an
oral SCN,in complaewith Secon124 . TheSCN inthe
nt capr es s a i ngly d or c m tohave e otb ne ud s i
and thus the dio itself would be cont etn r ay to law. The
f SCNadi o c wthu gl asin p orde
aring het onr, s ei P nt s oblen law.Thu ai e Ord r

¶29

Page 4 of

¶30

in - gnal Or i ate 29th Nov d mbr, e 04 is a 2 ordingly set c aside.”

¶31

Thus, the initial detention actually may not have been tenable. However, considering the fact that the Petitioner had already participated in the appellate proceedings, this Court is of the opinion that at the appellate stage, there was compliance of the principles of natural justice.

¶32

Moreover, the three-month period for filing of the revision has already lapsed. In order to file a revision now, sufficient cause has to be shown by the Customs Department. Since there is no proceeding pending as on date staying the implementation of the Order in Original merely because the Department may be contemplating filing of a Revision Petition, it would not mean that the order cannot be given effect to. The Petitioner ought to be given the benefit of the Order-in-Original which has been passed in her favour and has also been upheld by the Appellate authority.

¶33

Accordingly, this Court directs that the Order-in-Original be given effect to.

¶34

In the facts and circumstances of this case, complete warehousing charges are waived.

¶35

In the above terms, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶36

ANISH DYL JUDGE

¶37

/kp/ck

¶38

Page 5 of

Priyanka Sehgal v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Sehgal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Manjay Kumar Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Indraprastha Services Vs Union of India & Anr.

Bharat Goyal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Mekala Naresh Babu Vs Union Public Service Commission through Its Secretary & Anr.

Kanta Kapoor Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.

Smt. Gracy Job. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Save India Foundation (Regd.) Vs Irrigation and Flood Control Department & Ors.

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Tilak Singh Pal

K S Bhandari Vs M/S. International Security Printers Pvt. Ltd.

Surender Kaur and Anr. Vs Anoop Singh Charitable Trust

M/S. Frontier Sales Vs M/S. Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd.