Disposed¶22

Dharmin Givinstandre Ralanschi & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Delhi HC13 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/6499/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court writ petition disposed; gold granules seizure; Commissioner of Customs; show cause notice 24.12.2020; corrigenda issued beyond prescribed time; proceedings without jurisdiction; corrigenda substantive or formal; Order-in-Original 19.05.2021 confiscation of gold; Section 128(1) Customs Act 1962 statutory appeal; alternative statutory remedy; exclusion of limitation period; Anil Kshetarpal; Shail Jain; decided 13.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; Petitioners advised to avail the statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Order-in-Original dated 19.05.2021, and observed entitled to seek exclusion of the limitation period spent prosecuting the Writ Petition. ¶22

Dharmin Givinstandre Ralanschi & Ors. Vs Commissioner of… — Customs and Excise | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the corrigenda correcting the Show Cause Notice were issued beyond the prescribed time such that the customs proceedings are without jurisdiction (and whether the corrections were substantive or merely formal), and whether the Writ Petition should be entertained despite the available statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

¶21

Court's answer

The question whether the corrections made by way of the corrigenda were beyond the prescribed time, and whether they were substantive or merely formal in nature, can very well be examined by the Appellate Authority; the Petitioners, if so advised, may avail the alternative statutory remedy of appeal.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

A statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is maintainable against the Order-in-Original dated 19.05.2021 (stated as admitted), forming the basis for relegating the Petitioners to the appellate forum.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Petitioner shall be entitled to file an application for exclusion of the period spent in prosecuting the present Writ Petition (from filing till disposal), and any such application shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal & Shail Jain, JJ.; order dated 13.07.2026) disposed of W.P.(C) 6499/2021 in which the Petitioners, intercepted while carrying 2000 grams of Gold Granules and served a Show Cause Notice dated 24.12.2020 (corrected by corrigenda), sought mandamus for unconditional release of the gold and setting aside of the impugned show cause notice dated 24.12.2020 and corrigendum(s) dated 12.03.2021 and 15.03.2021, after an Order-in-Original dated 19.05.2021 confiscated the seized gold. Counsel for the Petitioners urged that the corrigenda were issued beyond the prescribed time, rendering the proceedings without jurisdiction. The Court held that this aspect - including whether the corrections made by way of the corrigenda were substantive or merely formal in nature - can very well be examined by the Appellate Authority, and directed the Petitioners, if so advised, to the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Order-in-Original, while observing that the Petitioner shall be entitled to file an application for exclusion of the period spent in prosecuting the Writ Petition, to be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. Pending application closed. (Note: the narration records the second correction as 15.03.2023 whereas the prayer cites 15.03.2021.)

¶1

$~130

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 6499/2021 and CM APPL. 20394/2021 DHARMIN GIVINSTANDRE RALANSCHI & ORS.

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Vikas Bhatia, Ms. Kanika Goswami, Mr. Samarth Sareen, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ANR. .....Respondents Through:

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

13.07.2026

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners

¶14

seeking the following prayer:

¶15

“a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to unconditionally release the Gold and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 24.12.2020 and impugned corrigendum(s) dated 12.03.2021 and 15.03.2021, in the interest of justice.”

¶16

The Petitioner No.1 is a Portuguese Passport Holder, whereas Petitioner No.2 is an Indian Passport Holder. The Petitioners were intercepted while carrying 2000 grams of Gold Granules. Thereafter, the Petitioners were given a Show Cause Notice on 24.12.2020, which was subsequently corrected on two different occasions i.e. on 12.03.2021 and 15.03.2023. Ultimately, the competent Authority passed an Order-in-Original on 19.05.2021, whereby the seized gold was confiscated.

¶17

Admittedly, a statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 15/07/2026 at 12:04:05

¶20

Customs Act, 1962 is maintainable against the Order-in-Original dated 19.05.2021.

¶21

Learned counsel representing the Petitioners submits that the corrigenda were issued beyond the prescribed time and therefore, the proceedings are without jurisdiction. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the Petitioners. 6. This aspect can very well be examined by the Appellate Authority, including the question whether the corrections made by way of the corrigenda were substantive or merely formal in nature. In these circumstances, the Petitioners, if so advised, may avail the alternative statutory remedy of appeal.

¶22

With these observations, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. The pending application also stands closed.

¶23

Needless to observe that the Petitioner shall be entitled to file an application for exclusion of the period spent in prosecuting the present Writ Petition, i.e. from the date of filing of the Writ Petition till its disposal. Any such application shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

¶24

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶25

SHAIL JAIN, J.

¶26

JULY 13, 2026 jai/ad

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 15/07/2026 at 12:04:05

Dharmin Givinstandre Ralanschi & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmin Givinstandre Ralanschi & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs & 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

Maninder Singh Vs Bank of India

Dinesh Solanki & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Suresh Singhal Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Prabhjit Singh Sarna Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Shah Caters Vs Archeological Survey of India

Cloud 9 Prjoects Private Limited Vs Anubhav Gupta & Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raja Rajeshwari Institute of Medical Sciences Girls Vs Union of India and Ors.

Natasha Oberoi Vs Rajaraman Shankar & Ors.

Rpa Allianz Industries through Its Proprietor Rajan Agarwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Commissioner of Customs (Acc Import), Vs Sunil Kumar Sharma

Surinder Singh Chopra Vs Commissioner of Customs

Isher Singh Chopra Vs Commissioner of Customs

Abc Global Ventures Vs Union of India & Anr.