Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th September, 2025
CHADCHAPORN THANKRATHOK .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. Vijay Kanth and Mr. Utkarsh Tripathi, Advs.
Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SSC
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner– ChadchapornThankrathokseeking release of her gold chains weighing a total of 198 grams which were seized by the Customs Department vide detention receipt dated 11th October, 2023.
3. On the last date i.e., 14th August, 2025, the Court after hearing the parties had directed the authorised representative of the Petitioner to remain physically present on the next date. The Petitioner was also directed to appear virtually on the next date. The relevant portion of the last order reads as under:
4. It is pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the Respondent-Department that as per the Memo of Parties, the Petitioner is stated to be the wife of one Mr. Golu Shaw, who is a resident of Gorakpur, Uttar Pradesh.
5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent further submits that the Authorization Letter in favour of Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta is neither stamped nor attested by the Indian Embassy. It is unclear as to where the Petitioner herself has signed this document or not. There is also a discrepancy in the surname of the Petitioner.
6. Under such circumstances before entertaining this Writ Petition, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Authorized Representative of the Petitioner to be present in Court on the next date of hearing. The Petitioner shall also join the proceedings virtually.”
4. Today, the Petitioner has appeared online along with her husband, Mr. Golu Shaw. The authorised representative - Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta is present physically in Court. The Court has interacted and inquired from them so as to satisfy the identity of the said persons in view of the submissions made by the Customs Department on the last date.
5. The Petitioner had a difficulty in understanding English. However, after some interaction through the virtual mode she has stated that she works in Bangkok as supervisor in a cleaning agency. Mr. Golu Shaw, her husband, submits that they had married recently in December, 2024 and that he travelled to Bangkok in the same month after the marriage. He submits that he is still looking for a job and he currently works in a shop in Bangkok.
6. Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta states that Mr. Golu Shaw is his Maasi’s (his mother’s sister) son.
7. The ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has also handed across an affidavit dated 12th September, 2025, deposed by the Petitioner along with a copy of her husband’s Aadhar Card. The same is taken on record.
8. There appears to be a communication issue insofar as the Petitioner is concerned. However, since she is appearing online and seems to understand the queries of the Court. At this stage, the Court is satisfied that the Petitioner’s identity is not in question.
9. Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, ld. SSC for the Customs Department has handed over a copy of the Order-in-Original dated 24th November, 2023 which has been passed in this matter.
10. Mr. S. Vijay Kanth, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is not aware of the passing of this order. It is also pointed out that even the covering letter does not mention the address of the Petitioner where the said order may have been communicated. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner insists that since no Show Cause Notice has been issued in this matter to the Petitioner, the said Order-in-Original ought to be set aside.
11. The Court has perused the said Order-in-Original and considered the facts of the case. It appears that the order may not have been in the knowledge of the Petitioner. However, the detention of the Petitioner’s gold items took place in 2023, much prior to the marriage of the Petitioner and at that time, it is unclear as to under what circumstances the Petitioner had travelled to India. She was not married at that time. Considering the nature of the goods, i.e., two golds chains weighing 198 grams, clearly, it appears that the Petitioner was aware that she had to declare the same.
12. It is also noted that since the Petitioner is a Thai national, the Petitioner has also given a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein she has stated that the gold items don’t belong to her and the same were given to her by one Mr. MonuSaow, though it is not clear as to who is Mr. MonuSaow. The husband of the Petitioner, who is appearing virtually states they are unaware of any Mr. MonuSaow.
13. Under these overall circumstances though there was a waiver of Show Cause Notice, considering the long time which has elapsed since the detention and the subsequent passing of the impugned Order-in-Original, the Court is inclined only to permit the Petitioner to avail of her appellate remedy in accordance with law.
14. Accordingly, the Order-in-Original dated 24th November, 2023 which has been handed over today, shall be considered to have been served upon the Petitioner on date. The Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority taking all the grounds which she may have to challenge the Order-in-Original. The Appellate Authority shall consider all the arguments and submissions on behalf of the Petitioner. A personal hearing shall be afforded to the Petitioner. Thereafter, a reasoned order shall be passed on merits. The details of the Petitioner for serving the notice of personal hearing are: • E-mail ID: adv.svijaykanth@gmail.com • Mobile: 7503313839
15. If the appeal is filed within the limitation period calculated from today, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
16. If the detained gold items have not been disposed of, the same shall not be disposed of without intimation to the Petitioner and in any case, at least, for two months after the passing of the Order-in-Appeal.
17. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that various decisions of the Supreme Court including Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Pushpa Lekhuman Tolani, AIR 2018 SC 438 as also of this Court ought to be considered by the Appellate Authority.
18. Needless to state that binding precedents including judicial decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court ought to be mandatorily considered by the Appellate Authority while passing any order.
19. Petitioner prays for waiver of warehousing charges. This prayer may be made before the Appellate Authority.
20. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 15, 2025/kp/msh