Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th September, 2025
BALWINDER SINGH VIG .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Ashutosh and Ms. Fatima, Advs.
Through: Mr. Adit Khorana (SSC), Ms. Simran Khorana, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the Customs Department to release the Petitioner’s gold kada, weighing 150 grams, and issue an appropriate writ directing the Customs Department to not demand warehousing charges from the Petitioner.
3. A brief background of the Petitioner’s case is that, Petitioner is a resident of the United Kingdom, holding a British passport. On 27th February, 2024 he arrived in India, and was intercepted by the Customs Department. Thereafter, a gold kada weighing 150 grams, and a pair of gold bracelets weighing 80 grams were detained by the Customs Department vide detention receipt dated 27th February 2024 (appraised on 28th February 2024).
4. After the detention of the gold items, an Order-in-Original dated 8th March 2024 was passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs (hereinafter ‘OIO’) directing absolute confiscation of the gold kada, but the gold bracelets were released, subject to payment of redemption fine for the purpose of reexport. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “ORDER
(i) I deny the 'Free Allowance' if any admissible to the passenger Mr. Balwinder Singh Vig for the various acts of commission and omission;
(ii) I declare the passenger, Balwinder Singh Vig is
"an ineligible Passenger" for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended);
(iii) I order absolute confiscation of "One gold Kada having purity 999 weight 150 grams valued at Rs. 8,79,182/-" recovered from the Pax Mr. Balwinder SinghVig and detained vide DR No. DR/lNDEL/27.02.2024/0028075dated 27.02.2024, under Section under Section 111 ( d), 111 (j) & 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962;
(iv) I order confiscation of "One pair of gold Gokhru
( Bracelet), one of which appears to be broken ln two part having purity 954 weight 160 grams valued at Rs. 8,99,l51/-"recovered from the Pax Mr. Balwindcr Singh Vig and detained vide DR No.DR/lNDEL/27.02.2024/0028075 dated 27.02.2024, under Section under Section 111 (d).111 (j) & 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962;
(v) I give an option to redeem the goods confiscated above in para (iv), on payment of a fine or Rs. 1,35,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Only) under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and allowed the same for re-export from India only by the Pax since the passenger is. a British national having British Passport NO. 549113212. 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;
(vi) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only) on the passenger Mr. Balwinder Singh Vig under Section l 12(a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.”
5. This order was challenged by the Petitioner by way of an appeal, and as per the Order-in-Appeal dated 27th June 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘OIA’) the gold kada was permitted to be released on the following grounds: “5.11 On the issue of allowing the said gold for reexport, I find that the appellant is a foreign resident. Thus, essential condition of leaving India is undisputed. The only fault that remains is non-declaration. In the case of Anjali Dechsakphan (2018 (363) ELT 802 (GOI)], the Revisionary authority upheld redemption for re-export in similar circumstances. Moreover, impugned gold is not going to enter domestic market, if allowed re-export and thus no detrimental effect to economy is anticipated. In case of Surya Babbar [2018(364) ELT 1196 (GOI)], the Government had allowed re-export of confiscated gold under similar circumstances. In case of Hajara Mariyam Seyed [2023(383) ELT 145 (Mad.)], Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of the Government allowing re-export of confiscated gold under similar conditions. Incase of Ashok Kumar Chirimar [2019 (370) ELT 1730 (GOI)], the Government allowed re-export noting that return of passenger to foreign country was crucial condition for re-export and non-declaration has been considered in several cases. Accordingly, I allow re-export of the impugned gold kada under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 on payment of redemption fine ofRs.1,30,000/- {Rupees One Lakh and Thirty Thousand only) under Section125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5.12 I uphold the penalty of Rs.1,80,000/- {Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand only) imposed on the appellant under Section 112 (a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 in view of the established violation of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was submitted by the appellant that he has already got release of the item allowed for re-export by the adjudicating authority, after making payment of redemption fine and aforesaid penalty of Rs.1,80,000/- imposed on the appellant vide impugned OIO, vide Challan No.25450 dated27.03.2024. Order
6.0 In light of discussions and findings as above, I allow the appeal partially against OIO NO. 1287/0028075/27.02.2024/WH/2023-24 dated 11-03- 2024passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, T- 3, IGI Airport, New Delhi and order that the impugned gold kada having purity 999, weighting150grams valued at Rs.7,79,182/- be released to the appellant on payment of redemption fine of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Thirty Thousand only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 for re-export. The penalty of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand only)imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act,1962 vide impugned OIO is upheld which is stated to have already been paid by the appellant. The Appeal is disposed off with such modifications and consequential relief as above.”
6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is travelling to India next month, and wishes to obtain release the gold kada, which has been directed to be released in terms of the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
7. Heard. The Court has gone through the matter, as also the OIA. The OIA is a reasoned one, and the Petitioner must be wearing a gold kada, due to his religious identity. Moreover, this Court in W.P. (C) 5136/2025 titled Dalvinder Singh Sudan vs. Commissioner of Customs has observed as under:
8. At this stage, it is noticed, as observed in W.P. (C) 14324/2025 titled Mushlina vs. Commissioner of Customs that the Customs Department do not appear in the Appellate proceedings and none of the orders of the Appellate Authority are mostly given effect to. The Customs Department merely chooses to file a revision application and does not serve the said revision application on the Petitioner. In the said case, this Court vide order dated 16th September 2025 had directed as under:
9. In the present matter also, the stand of the Customs Department is that it is contemplating to file a revision, as stated by the ld. Counsel on behalf of the Customs Department.
10. Since the OIA is a well-reasoned one, this Court is of the opinion that the same deserves to be given effect to. Accordingly, let the OIA be given effect to. The warehousing charges are waived in this matter.
11. Let the petitioner appear before the Customs Authority on 13th October, 2025.The Nodal Officer mentioned below shall facilitate the Petitioner’s appearance before the competent authority for compliance with the present order: Mr. Sandeep Lamba, Superintendent, Customs Office of Commissioner, Customs IGI Airports, T-3, New Delhi Mobil No.7405345000 Email id: igilegaldelhi@gmail.com
12. The present petition along with pending application/s, if any, is disposed of in above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 17, 2025/kp/sm