Ms. Puja Jayant & Ors vs Commissioner Of Customs, Igi Airport on 11 September, 2025

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

Ms. Puja Jayant & Ors vs Commissioner Of Customs, Igi Airport on 11 September, 2025

$~77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th September, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 13995/2025 & CM APPL. 57278/2025
MS. PUJA JAYANT & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Harsh Trikha, Adv.
versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, IGI AIRPORT .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, SSC with Mr.
Harsh Singhal and Mr. Suraj Shekhar
Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 57278/2025 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13995/2025
3. The present petition reveals a concerning situation with respect to the
functioning of the Customs Department at I.G.I. Airport.
4. The petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of their gold jewellery
seized by the Customs Department, I.G.I. Airport.
5. The details of the detained jewellery which were detained vide detention
receipts dated 6th September, 2022, are as under:
● One gold chain weighing 100gms
● One gold chain weighing 51gms

W.P.(C) 13995/2025 Page 1 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.09.2025
14:27:04
● One gold chain weighing 250gms
(hereinafter 'gold jewellery')
6. A brief background of the Petitioner's case is that, Petitioners i.e
Petitioner No.1 - Ms. Puja Jayant who is the wife of Petitioner No.3 - Mr. Jayant
Shastri, along with Petitioner No.2-Ms. Manisha Shastri, who is the sister of
Petitioner No. 3, were travelling to India from Dubai to attend a family
wedding. Upon their arrival, they were intercepted by the Customs department
on 6th September, 2022 and the gold jewellery worn by them was detained vide
three separate detention receipts dated 6th September 2022.
7. On 21st March, 2023, a representation is stated to have been filed by the
Petitioners' Counsel (hereinafter 'first representation'), requesting the
Customs Department not to dispose of their gold jewellery.
8. Additionally, a personal hearing was also given to the Petitioner on 28th
March 2023, wherein the Petitioners emphasised that the gold jewellery was
their personal use effects and requested the same to be released for re-export.
9. Thereafter, the Order-in-Original was passed on 28th April, 2023, by the
Commissioner of Customs (Delhi Airport) (hereinafter 'OIO'). In terms of the
OIO, the gold jewellery was permitted to be released with payment of a fine of
Rs.2 lakhs for re-export to UAE. The operative portion of the said order reads
as under:
"ORDER
i) I deny the free allowance as admissible to the to the Pax(s)
on account of various omission and commission, as discussed
hereinabove;

ii) I order confiscation of the above Gold chains total
weighing 401 gms, having tariff value of Rs.17,96,907/-
(Rupees Seventeen Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Nine

W.P.(C) 13995/2025 Page 2 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.09.2025
14:27:04
Hundred Seven Only) and seized from possession of Pax-1,
Pax-2 & Pax-3 under Section 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), 111(l),
111(m)& 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962;

iii) I give an option to redeem the goods confiscated
above to the Pax- 1&3 i.e. Ms. Puja jayant & Mr. Jayant
Shastri on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs.2,00,000/-(
Rupees Two Lakh only ) to be paid jointly or severally, under
Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and allowed the same for
re -export to UAE only. 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(s) shall not dispute the
identity' and valuation of the seized goods. The offer of
redemption shall cease after 120 days from date of the receipt
of this order;

iv) I give an option to redeem the goods confiscated above
to the Pax-2, Ms. Mnaisha Shastri, on payment of
Redemption Fine of Rs.75,000/- ( Rupees Seventy Five
Thousand only) under Section 125 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 seized
goods. The offer of redemption shall cease after 120 days
from date of the receipt of this order;

v) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 / - (Rupees One Lakh
only) upon the Pax-1 for her act of ommissions &
commissions in respect of Gold 250gms valued at
Rs.11,20,266/ - under Section 112(a), Section 112( b) and
114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 .

vi) I impose a penalty of Rs.40,000/-( Rupees Forty Thousand
only) upon the Pax-2, for her acts of ommissions &

W.P.(C) 13995/2025 Page 3 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.09.2025
14:27:04
commissions in respect of Gold 100 gms valued at
Rs.4,48,107 / - under Section 112(a), Section 112 (b) and
114AA of the Customs Act , 1962.

vii) 1 impose a penalty of Rs.20,000/- ( Rupees Twenty
Thousand only) upon the Pax-3, for his act of ommissions &
commissions in respect of Gold 51 gms valued at
Rs.2,28,534/ - under Section 112(a), Section 112( b) and
114AA of the Customs Act , 1962."

10. On 19th July 2023, another representation is stated to have been filed by
the Petitioners' Counsel, requesting the redemption of the gold jewellery of the
Petitioners (hereinafter 'second representation').
11. Additionally, along with the second representation, the cancelled
cheques were also submitted by the Petitioners. However, thereafter, the
Petitioners were informed that the gold jewellery had been disposed of.
Surprisingly, the OIO neither recorded that the gold jewellery had been
disposed of.
12. The Petitioners then sought a refund of the amount, which was also
rejected by the Customs Department, on the ground of limitation vide the refund
order dated 26th March 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Refund)
(hereinafter 'refund order'). The discussion and findings in the refund order is
as under:
"Discussion & Findings

9. I have carefully gone through the case and documents
available on record in case of Ms. Puja Jayant(D.O.B
04.03.1992), Ms Manisha Shastri (D.O.B 22.08.1994) and Mr.
Jayant Shastri (D.O.B 10.03.1991). I have also perused the OIO
passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Terminal-3,
IGI Airport, New Delhi.

W.P.(C) 13995/2025 Page 4 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.09.2025
14:27:04
Therefore, the Pax-wise refund calculation is reflected in
the table below: -
Refund calculation in respect of Pax-1, Ms. Puja Jayant
(D.O.B 04.03.1992): -

10. I find that the applicant has claimed refund of the sale
proceeds under the Customs Act, 1962, after deducting
Redemption Fine and Penalty. On going through the records, I
find that though the redemption fine and penalty has not been
paid by the applicant within a period of one hundred and twenty
days from the date of passing of Order- in Original No.
93/Adj/2023 dated 01.05.2023 as required under Section 125 of

W.P.(C) 13995/2025 Page 5 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.09.2025
14:27:04
the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant had made an application
dated 08.11.2024 for re- export of the goods in terms of the Order
-in Original No. 93/Adj/2023 dated 01.05.2023. I find that the
request for re-export was made by the Pax(s) after lapse of 120
days from the date of OIO. The Paxs had claimed refund under
Section 150. However, Section 150 applies to goods which are
not confiscated. For goods which are confiscated, redemption is
as per Section 125, which gives a time of 120 days in which the
Pax ( s) has to accept the offer of redemption. If offer of
redemption is not acceptable within this period, the offer
becomes void, and the confiscation becomes absolute. In such
cases, the goods vest with the Central Government, and upon
their disposal, the sale proceeds also vest with the Central
Government. The present case squarely falls in this category,
hence refund is liable to rejected.

102. I therefore hold that the offer of redemption granted by the
Adjudicating Authority u/s 125 had lapsed and the goods had
become vested with the Government.

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

ORDER

In view of the above, the claimant has not paid the redemption fine and penalty within the stipulated time provided vide Order- in-Original No.93/Adj/2023 dated 01.05.2023. I therefore, reject the refund claim filed by the the applicants."

13. The total weight of the gold items, which were seized, was to the tune of more than 400 grams. The refund order does not mention as to what was the amount recovered from the disposal of the gold jewellery. It is pertinent to note that only the appraised value is discussed in the refund order. Additionally, the OIO also did not record that the goods were disposed of and redemption was permitted.

W.P.(C) 13995/2025 Page 6 of 8 Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.09.2025 14:27:04

14. Under these circumstances, despite repeated representations, it is inexplicable as to why the seized gold jewellery was disposed of in this manner.

15. In effect, the Petitioners' goods have been disposed of and even the amounts recovered from such disposal, which the Petitioners are entitled to as per the OIO, has not been paid to the Petitioner, despite repeated follow ups and representations.

16. The Customs Department has, in fact, seized the gold jewellery, and disposed of the same, and refused to pay any amounts to the Petitioners, despite the OIO having attained finality. Such conduct on behalf of the Customs Department reveals an extremely disturbing situation where passengers are being deprived of their property without authority of law.

17. Accordingly, it is directed that Mr. Birendra Singh Khati, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.

18. Additionally, this order shall also be brought to the notice of the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, as also the Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, by ld. Counsel for the Respondent. The same shall also be communicated through email to the said authorities on the following email addresses:

 Email address of Secretary, Ministry of Finance: [email protected]  Email address of Chairman, CBIC: [email protected] The said authorities shall accordingly hold a meeting with the Customs authorities and take appropriate measures so that such incidents do not recur in future.

W.P.(C) 13995/2025 Page 7 of 8 Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.09.2025 14:27:04

19. List on 22nd September 2025 in Supplementary List.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 11, 2025/dk/sm W.P.(C) 13995/2025 Page 8 of 8 Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.09.2025 14:27:04

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court