The Delhi High Court has held that absolute confiscation of high-purity gold jewellery is not justified in absence of smuggling evidence.

The bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul has directed the Customs Department to release seized gold articles belonging to a passenger arriving from Bangkok after noting that the appellate and revisional authorities had already permitted redemption of the goods on payment of customs duty, redemption fine and penalty. The Court also granted waiver of warehouse charges from the date of the appellate order till actual release of the gold articles.

According to the petitioner, the Customs Department detained one gold kada weighing 120 grams and one gold ring weighing 8 grams when he arrived in New Delhi from Bangkok on February 26, 2024. The petitioner contended that the articles were old personal jewellery worn by him and supported his claim with invoices and photographs placed on record. 

The adjudicating authority, however, passed an Order denying the petitioner the benefit of free baggage allowance under the Baggage Rules, 2016 and ordered absolute confiscation of the gold items. The authority treated the articles as one unfinished gold ring and one unfinished gold kada having purity of 999, collectively valued at Rs. 7,43,835. A penalty of Rs. 75,000 was also imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 

On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) partly allowed the petitioner’s plea and modified the order of absolute confiscation. The appellate authority permitted redemption and release of the gold articles on payment of redemption fine of ₹75,000 along with applicable customs duty, while maintaining the penalty of ₹75,000 under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act. 

During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the Customs Department filed a revision petition before the Revisional Authority contending that the petitioner had committed a Green Channel violation by allegedly attempting to pass through the Green Channel without declaration of gold and with intent to evade customs duty. The Department also argued that the petitioner was carrying gold in commercial quantity. 

The Revisional Authority, however, upheld the appellate authority’s approach. It observed that where goods are not prohibited, adjudicating authorities are generally required to provide an option for redemption and that there is no absolute bar even in cases involving prohibited goods. The authority relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Raj Grow Impex LLP while examining the scope of discretion under Section 125 of the Customs Act. 

The Revisional Authority noted that the petitioner was the owner of the gold, the quantity was not commercial in nature, there was no material indicating that he was a habitual offender, and no evidence suggested involvement in an organised smuggling syndicate. It held that absolute confiscation merely because the gold jewellery had high purity and could fall within the category of primary gold was not a reasonable conclusion. 

Taking note of the subsequent affirmation of the appellate order by the Revisional Authority on March 5, 2026, the High Court held that no further interference was required in the writ petition since the principal relief sought by the petitioner — release of the seized gold articles — already stood substantially granted. 

The Court directed the Customs Department to immediately release the gold articles subject to payment of applicable customs duty, redemption fine of Rs. 75,000 and penalty of Rs. 75,000, if not already paid. 

The Court also ruled that warehouse charges could not be imposed after the appellate authority had already permitted redemption and release of the goods. Accordingly, it waived warehouse charges from June 27, 2025 — the date of the Order-in-Appeal — till the date of actual release of the gold articles. 

Case Details

Case Title: Harish Kumar Versus Customs Commissioner

Citation: JURISHOUR-1109-HC-2026(DEL) 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 12711/2025

Date: 04/05/2026

Counsel For Petitioner: Pawan and Richa Kumari

Counsel For Respondent: Avijit Dikshit, Standing Counsel