The Delhi High Court has imposed the cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Uzbek National, Bakhodirjon Sultonov for Suppressing Facts in Gold Seizure.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain dismissed Sultonov’s petition, observing that he had failed to disclose that a confiscation order had already been passed by the Customs Department and duly received by his authorised representative, Advocate Anisha Sharma.
The petitioner, Bakhodirjon Sultonov is a national of Uzbekistan and had travelled from Uzbekistan to New Delhi on 16th December, 2023. Upon his arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, the Petitioner was intercepted by the Customs Department and the seized goods were detained vide detention receipt dated 16th December, 2023.
It is stated that the seized goods were appraised by the Customs Department on 19th December, 2023 on which date the Petitioner had submitted a detailed representation claiming the seized goods as personal jewellery. It is also stated that the Petitioner did not seek waiver of show cause notice and no oral show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. However, it is alleged that the Customs Department obtained a waiver of the show cause notice in a pre-printed form.
The Petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that no show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner till date and also no personal hearing has been provided. In view of the same, the Petitioner has preferred the petition.
Sultonov arrived in India from Uzbekistan on December 16, 2023, carrying several gold ornaments which were detained by the Customs Department during a baggage check. The seized items included 9 gold chains (175 grams, purity 600), 2 gold bangles (21 grams, purity 588), 2 gold pendants (7 grams, purity 591), and 5 gold rings (25 grams, purity 583). The total appraised value of the jewellery was ₹8,41,708.
Sultonov contended that the ornaments were personal jewellery and not commercial imports. He also argued that no show cause notice had been issued and that no personal hearing was provided before the confiscation.
The Customs Department produced an Order-in-Original dated February 26, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, which recorded that Sultonov’s authorised representative, Advocate Anisha Sharma, had appeared before customs authorities, waived the show cause notice, and received a copy of the order. The order had denied free allowance under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus and Baggage Rules, 2016. Declared Sultonov an “ineligible passenger” for duty exemption. Ordered absolute confiscation of the jewellery under Sections 111(d), 111(j), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Imposed a penalty of ₹85,000 under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Act.
The court held that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. Even if the Court wishes to give any benefit of doubt to the Petitioner, the only remedy available to the Petitioner would be to challenge the Order.
The court held that the petition is not maintainable and is dismissed in above terms with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited with the Customs Department.
Case Details
Case Title: Bakhodirjon Sultonov Versus Commissioner Of Custom & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 14673/2025
Date: 8th October, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Mohammed Ather & Md. Mobeen AkhteR
Counsel For Respondent: Avijit Dikshit
Read More: Convicts Be Given Option To Choose Between Hanging And Lethal Injection: SC Urges Centre to Consider
