2025(09)LCX0019
Priyanka Sehgal
Versus
Commissioner Of Customs
W.P.(C) 13460/2025 decided on 02-09-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 2nd September, 2025
W.P.(C) 13460/2025
PRIYANKA SEHGAL
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr.
Ashish Panday and Mr. Ajay Singh,
Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
.....Respondent
Through: Mr.
Akshay Amritanshu, SSC with Ms.
Drishti Saraf, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Priyanka Sehgal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, 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.
3. 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.e., 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 gold items were seized by the Customs Department after issuing a detention receipt.
4. 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 23rd April, 2024 in the following terms:
“ORDER
i) I deny the 'Free Allowance' if any, admissible to the Pax Ms. Priyanka Sehgal 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.
ii) I declare the passenger Ms. Priyanka Sehgal 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).
(iii) I order confiscation of One gold chain having average purity 992 with gross and net weight 102 grams having Assessable value Rs.5,85,872/-, Two gold bangles having average purity 921 with gross and net weight 200 grams having Assessable value Rs.10,66,548/-, total Assessable value of all gold items is Rs. 16,52,420/- recovered from the Pax Ms Priyanka Sehgal and detained vide DR No. DR/INDEL4/29.02.2024/003905 dated 29.02.2024 under section 111 (d), 111 (j) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962;
(iv) I give an option to redeem, the goods confiscated above on payment of fine of Rs. 2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs forty-five 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;
(v) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lakh sixty-five thousand Only) on the Pax Ms Priyanka Sehgal under section 112 (a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.”
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/-.
6. This Order-in-Original was challenged by the Customs Department wherein the Appellate Authority has dismissed the said appeal on 26th 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:
“3.2.2 That law or baggage rules do not have any bar on the import on carrying of Jewellery in Pure form. Moreover Purity if 992 and 921 cannot be said to be purest form of Gold.”
7. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he seeks implementation of the Order-in-Original.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 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 Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:751- DB. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
“16. A perusal of Section 124 of the Act along with the alleged waiver which is relied upon would show that the oral SCN cannot be deemed to have been served in this manner as is being alleged by the Department. If an oral SCN waiver has to be agreed to by the person concerned, the same ought to be in the form of a proper declaration, consciously signed by the person concerned. Even then, an opportunity of hearing ought to be afforded, inasmuch as, the person concerned cannot be condemned unheard in these matters. Printed waivers of this nature would fundamentally violate rights of persons who are affected. Natural justice is not merely lip-service. It has to be given effect and complied with in letter and spirit.
17. The three-pronged waiver which the form contains is not even decipherable or comprehensible to the common man. Apart from agreeing as per the said form that the oral SCN has been served, the person affected has also waived a right for personal hearing. Such a form in fact shocks the conscience of the Court, that too in cases of the present nature where travellers/tourists are made to run from pillar to post for seeking release of detained goods.
[...]
19. This Court is of the opinion that the printed waiver of SCN and the printed statement made in the request for release of goods cannot be considered or deemed to be an oral SCN, in compliance with Section 124. The SCN in the present case is accordingly deemed to have not been issued and thus the detention itself would be contrary to law. The order passed in original without issuance of SCN and without hearing the Petitioner, is not sustainable in law. The Order-in-Original dated 29th November, 2024 is accordingly setaside.”
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Accordingly, this Court directs that the Order-in-Original be given effect to.
14. In the facts and circumstances of this case, complete warehousing charges are waived.
15. In the above terms, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
ANISH DAYAL
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025