M/S Fone O Clock, through Its Partner, Sh. Paras Sareen v. Commissioner of Customs-Preventive, New Custom House New Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC11 Mar 2025W.P.(C)/3045/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Customs seizure of foreign-origin mobile phones from retailer; refusal of provisional release challenged by writ under Articles 226/227; no import or purchase documents shown; panchnama listed latest Apple, Samsung, Google devices from multiple countries; Delhi High Court declined interference but directed provisional assessment within 30 days of request; petition disposed; W.P.(C) 3045/2025, order dt. 11.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused and the writ petition disposed of, with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Customs Department for provisional assessment of the seized goods, to be dealt with in accordance with law and concluded within thirty days of the request. ¶¶28

M/S Fone O Clock, through Its Partner, Sh. Paras… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned letter dated 17.02.2025 of Respondent No.2 rejecting the Petitioner's prayer for provisional release of the seized goods is liable to be quashed / interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

A perusal of the Petitioner's repeated replies to the Customs Department showed not a single document revealing the manner in which the goods were imported or the manner in which the Petitioner purchased them; the panchnama listed latest models of Apple iPhones, Apple Watches, Samsung Galaxy phones, Google Pixel phones etc., with countries of origin Mexico, Taiwan, China, Japan, USA, Hong Kong, Vietnam and Korea.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any justification as to how the Petitioner came into possession of the goods, the impugned communication refusing provisional release is not liable to be interfered with.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

The Petitioner remains free to approach the Customs Department for provisional assessment of the subject goods, which the Customs shall deal with in accordance with law.ratio¶¶26
Since the goods are mobile phones that would get outdated if provisional assessment is not timely concluded, if the Petitioner approaches the Department, the assessment shall be done within thirty days of the request being made.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.), W.P.(C) 3045/2025, order dated 11.03.2025 — M/s Fone O Clock, a retailer of second-hand and new electronic goods, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of a letter dated 17th February, 2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) rejecting provisional release of mobile phones of foreign origin seized in a raid on 17th October, 2024. The Petitioner claimed he was not the importer and had purchased the goods from the open market, and urged provisional assessment even without import documents. The Court noted that the Petitioner's repeated replies contained not a single document showing how the goods were imported or purchased, while the panchnama listed latest-model Apple iPhones, Apple Watches, Samsung Galaxy phones, Google Pixel phones etc., originating from Mexico, Taiwan, China, Japan, USA, Hong Kong, Vietnam and Korea. Holding that, absent any justification of possession, the impugned communication was not liable to be interfered with, the Court nonetheless left the Petitioner free to seek provisional assessment, directing that it be concluded within thirty days of the request given the risk of mobile phones getting outdated. Petition disposed of along with pending applications.

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3045/2025 M/S FONE O CLOCK, THROUGH ITS PARTNER, SH. PARAS SAREEN .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Vikas Sareen, Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu, Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr.Ayish Mittal, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-PREVENTIVE, NEW CUSTOM HOUSE NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC CBIC, Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶8

O R D E R % 11.03.2025

¶9

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶10

CM APPL. 14452/2025 (for exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 3045/2025

¶12

This is a petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking quashing of the impugned letter bearing no. F. No. GEN/INV/OTH/517/2024-Gr-1 O/o Pr Commr-Cus-Prev-Delhi/1567 dated 17^th February, 2025 issued by Respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). By the said communication the prayer of the Petitioner for provisional release of the goods of the Petitioner has been rejected.

¶13

The background of this case is that the Petitioner claims to be a retailer selling second hand and new electronic goods, including mobile phones, etc. A raid was conducted in his premises on 17^th October, 2024 and a large quantity of mobile phones of foreign origin, etc., were seized by the Customs

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

W.P.(C) 3045/2025

¶16

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 17/03/2025 at 11:42:16

¶17

Department.

¶18

According to the Petitioner, he was not the importer of these goods and had purchased it from the open market. Summons were issued to the Petitioner and certain replies were filed. When the Petitioner sought provisional release of the said goods, the same was rejected vide the impugned letter.

¶19

Mr. Maggu, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that these are not new goods and that they are second hand products. It is also submitted that since these goods are purchased from the open market, the import documents may not be available with the Petitioner. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Customs Department ought to provisionally assess these goods, even if the import documents are not furnished.

¶20

Mr. Singla, ld. SCC for the Respondents appears on advance notice and submits that the Petitioner ought to approach the department and submit all the necessary documents.

¶21

The Court has considered the matter. A perusal of the repeated replies filed by the Petitioner with the Customs Department shows that there is not a single document which shows the manner in which the goods have been imported or the manner in which the Petitioner has purchased these goods. The panchnama also reveals the list of goods, which show that the products are latest models of Apple iPhones, Apple Watches, Samsung Galaxy phones, Google Pixel phones etc., The countries of origin of the said goods i.e., Mexico, Taiwan, China, Japan, United States of America, Hong Kong, Vietnam and Korea are also mentioned in the panchnama.

¶22

In the absence of any justification as to how the Petitioner came into possession of these goods, the impugned communication would not be liable

Page 2 of 3

W.P.(C) 3045/2025

to be interfered with. The Petitioner is, however, free to approach the Customs Department for provisional assessment of the subject goods which the Customs shall deal with in accordance with law.

¶27

Considering that these are mobile phones and the same would get outdated if provisional assessment is not concluded in a timely manner, if the Petitioner approaches the Department, the same shall be done within a period of thirty days, after the request is made.

¶28

The petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶29

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J

¶30

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

¶31

MARCH 11, 2025/ nd/ck

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

W.P.(C) 3045/2025

¶34

M/S Fone O Clock, through Its Partner, Sh. Paras Sareen v. Commissioner of Customs-Preventive, New Custom House New Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Fone O Clock, through Its Partner, Sh. Paras Sareen v. Commissioner of Customs-Preventive, New Custom House New Delhi & Anr.

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

Manish Mittal as Legal Heir of the Deceased Devender Mittal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3), Delhi & Anr.

Pushpa Rani Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Krishna Devi Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Nimit Builders Private Limited (as Successor in the Interest of Jk Jeet Clothes Private Limited and Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. Vs Competition Commission of India

Vashim Ahmad Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Savita Taneja Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Rajender Singh Advocate Vs the Chairperson Election Committee & Ors.

Amirhossein Alizadeh Vs the Commissioner of Customs & Ors.

Akash Malik Vs Commissioner of Customs New Delhi

Kishan Chauhan Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ramakant Shankarmal Pilani Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

M/S Prenda Creations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.