Disposed

Ramesh Kumar Jangir v. Commissioner of Customs

Delhi HC4 Apr 2025W.P.(C)/4273/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of gold chain and gold pieces detained by Customs at the airport despite willingness to pay duty. The court directed implementation of an Order-in-Original releasing the items on payment of applicable duty, barred warehousing charges after the OIO date, and fixed compliance.

What did the court decide?

OIO dated 29 July 2025 to be implemented within two weeks; detained gold to be released on payment per OIO; no warehousing charges post-OIO; appearance before Customs on 16 December 2025 facilitated b

Ramesh Kumar Jangir Vs Commissioner of Customs — Customs and Excise | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 4^th December, 2025 Uploaded on 6^th December, 2025

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 4273/2025 & CM APPL. 55249/2025

¶4

RAMESH KUMAR JANGIR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Richa Kumari, Mr. Pawan, Mr. Ravi Rathore and Mr. Yatin Bhutani, Advs. (M: 8766321884)

¶5

versus

¶6

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr. Naman Choula, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

¶8

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶9

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 55249/2025 (for release) in W.P.(C) 4273/2025

¶10

The present petition was disposed of vide order dated 4^th April, 2025. The brief background is that the present petition was filed, inter alia, seeking release of the gold items being one gold chain weighing 51 grams and two gold pieces weighing 65 grams each (hereinafter “ seized items ”) seized by the Customs Department vide Detention Receipt No. 3853 dated 23rd February 2024.

¶11

The case of the Petitioner is that he is a citizen of India working as a private sector worker in Kuwait. He returned from Kuwait on 23^rd February, 2024. According to the Petitioner, he had gone to the red channel to declare the seized items. However, the said seized items were detained and the detention receipt was also issued. Thereafter, the same have also been

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 4273/2025 Signing Dat e:0 6.12.2025 18:24:05

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

appraised by the Customs Department.

¶16

At that stage, the grievance of the Petitioner was that no orders were passed by the Customs Department despite the Petitioner being willing to pay customs duty on the seized items. Accordingly, on 4th April, 2025 the following order was passed:

¶17

“5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that no order has been passed by the Customs Department till date. The Petitioner is willing to pay the customs duty as payable on the said gold pieces. Further, in the opinion of this Court the gold chain could be considered as a personal effect of the Petitioner. Insofar as the gold chain, is concerned the same shall be considered as a personal effect of the Petitioner, and shall be released to the Petitioner without payment of the customs duty.

¶18

6. Insofar as the gold pieces are concerned, let the Petitioner appear before the Customs Department and an order be passed bearing in mind the above fact that the Petitioner wanted to declare the said gold pieces and had chosen to go through the red channel.

¶19

7. The Petitioner to appear before the Customs Department on 22nd April, 2025 at 11:30 AM.

¶20

8. After hearing the Petitioner, an order shall be passed by the Department in accordance with law.”

¶21

Thereafter, an Order-in-Original (hereinafter “ OIO ”) has been passed on 29^th July, 2025. The operative portion of which reads as under:

¶22

“ORDER

¶23

i. I allow the 'Free Allowance 'admissible to the Pax Ramesh Kumar Jangir.

¶24

ii. I declare the passenger, Ramesh Kumar Jangir, an

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 4273/2025 Signing Dat e:0 6.12.2025 18:24:05

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

“eligible Passenger" for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended).

¶29

iii. I order release of "One gold chain having purity 895, weighing 51 grams, valued at 2,58,239/-“, being personal effects of the Pax, without payment of duty/fine/penalty and “Two gold cut pieces having purity 999, weighing 65 grams, valued at 3,49,880" on applicable rate of Customs Duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017, provided the Pax fulfils/ satisfies the conditions laid thereunder;

¶30

iv. I refrain from imposing any penalty on the Pax. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Jangir under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.”

¶31

As per the above order, the gold chain and the two gold pieces weighing 65 grams were directed to be released on payment of customs duty.

¶32

Since this order was not being implemented, an application was filed by the Petitioner in which Ms. Narain, ld. SSC for the Customs Department was directed to seek instructions on 2nd September, 2025.

¶33

Today, it is submitted by ld. SSC that the Customs Department has accepted the OIO dated 29^th July, 2025. 9. In view of the above statement, let the OIO dated 29^th July, 2025 be given effect to within two weeks.

¶34

It is made clear that no warehousing charges shall be payable for the period after passing of the OIO i.e., after from 29^th July, 2025. However, for the previous period, warehousing charges as applicable on the date of detention shall be payable along with other amounts in terms of the said OIO.

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:0 6.12.2025 18:24:05

¶37

W.P.(C) 4273/2025

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

Upon the payment of the amounts as per the OIO, the detained items shall be released to the Petitioner.

¶40

The Petitioner shall appear before the Customs Department on 16^th December, 2025. The Nodal Officer mentioned below shall facilitate the Petitioner’s appearance before the competent authority for compliance with the present order:

¶41

Mr. Mukesh Gulia, Superintendent, Legal Office of Commissioner, Customs IGI Airports, T-3, New Delhi Email id: [email protected] Mob. 9999922479

¶42

The application is disposed of in these terms.

¶43

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

¶44

SHAIL JAIN JUDGE

¶45

DECEMBER 4, 2025 dj/msh

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:0 6.12.2025 18:24:05

¶48

W.P.(C) 4273/2025

¶49

Page 4 of 4

Ramesh Kumar Jangir v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Jangir v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Moghe Vs Union of India and Anr.

Indian Bank Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Anr.

Sagar Rajendra Kumar Mangla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Randhir Singh Malik Vs Union of India & Anr.

Smt. Sunita Popli Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Gaurav Meena Vs Central Information Commission

K.G.Somani & Co. Vs UOI & Ors.

Mohd Murtaza Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

S.Sunil Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Aarti Mathur Vs Union of India through Director General Cisf & Ors.

Ex. Si/Gd Dalel Singh Vs Union of India through Its Secretary & Ors.

M/S Maruti Trading Co. Vs Sales Tax Officer, Class Ii, Avato & Anr.

Sarabjeet Singh Vs the Commissioner of Sgst and Anr.

Nexgen Busicorp Vs Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (Cgst) South Delhi & Anr.