The Delhi High Court has upheld the confiscation of over 2.7 kilograms of undeclared gold jewellery and gold biscuits brought into India by a passenger arriving from Dubai, ruling that a belated retraction of a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot displace contemporaneous documentary evidence and concurrent factual findings recorded by customs authorities.
The bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain reiterated that it would not reappreciate evidence in exercise of its writ jurisdiction unless the findings were perverse or suffered from manifest illegality.
The writ petition was filed by Abdul Samad, who challenged the orders of the Adjudicating Authority, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), and the Revisional Authority affirming the confiscation of gold jewellery and gold biscuits recovered from him at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, on 11 October 2013.
Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026
The petitioner also sought refund of the sale proceeds of the confiscated gold without deduction of redemption fine, customs duty, or penalty, together with interest.
According to Customs, the petitioner arrived from Dubai and was intercepted after crossing the Green Channel. During examination, officers recovered 477 gold chains weighing 2,516.5 grams and two gold biscuits weighing 100 grams each, aggregating 2,716.5 grams, besides Indian and UAE currency. The Customs Declaration Form submitted by him declared “Nil,” indicating that he had not disclosed carrying any dutiable goods.
During investigation, the petitioner made a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitting that he had purchased the gold in Dubai for sale in India, had wrapped the gold to avoid detection, and had entered India without declaring the goods or paying customs duty. He also disclosed his previous practice of transporting gold and other goods between Dubai and India for profit.
Subsequently, after obtaining bail, he retracted the statement, alleging coercion, and sought preservation of CCTV footage from the airport, claiming that he had intended to approach the Red Channel for declaration but was intercepted beforehand. However, by the time the trial court ordered preservation, the CCTV footage had already been automatically erased in the ordinary course.
The petitioner argued that he had intended to make the required declaration before Customs but was intercepted before reaching the Red Channel. He further contended that the non-preservation of CCTV footage deprived him of crucial evidence that could have substantiated his version of events.
He also maintained that the statement recorded under Section 108 was involuntary, having been obtained under coercion, and therefore could not be relied upon. Additionally, he argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had travelled beyond the reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority while dismissing his appeal.
Rejecting the petitioner’s principal contention, the High Court observed that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that he had been intercepted before reaching the Red Channel.
The Bench noted that the Customs Declaration Form filed by the petitioner categorically declared “Nil,” despite the large quantity of gold found in his possession. This contemporaneous document significantly weakened his plea that he intended to voluntarily declare the goods.
The Court also took note of the petitioner’s travel history, observing that he had undertaken 21 international trips within a short period and was an experienced international traveller familiar with customs procedures. These facts, according to the Court, established that he was fully aware of the obligation to declare dutiable goods upon arrival in India.
Addressing the argument relating to the missing CCTV footage, the Court held that the mere absence of CCTV recordings could not validate the petitioner’s version.
It observed that although the petitioner had sought preservation of the footage, the judicial order directing preservation was passed nearly seven months after the incident, by which time the footage had already been erased in accordance with the prescribed retention policy. Since there was no independent evidence supporting the petitioner’s claim, the disappearance of the footage did not undermine the documentary evidence relied upon by Customs authorities.
The High Court also rejected the challenge to the admissibility of the Section 108 statement.
It noted that the statement extended to eleven pages, bore the petitioner’s signatures on every page, and contained detailed information regarding his personal background, employment, business activities, travel history, purchase of gold, and the manner in which the gold was concealed. The Court found nothing to indicate that the statement had been mechanically recorded or extracted under coercion.
The Bench further observed that the retraction was made only after the petitioner secured bail, making it an afterthought. The statement was also corroborated by the contemporaneous panchnama signed by independent witnesses and the petitioner himself. In the absence of any contemporaneous material establishing coercion, the authorities were justified in relying upon the statement.
The Court reiterated that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are confined to judicial review and do not permit the High Court to function as an appellate authority for reappreciating evidence.
Interference, it held, is warranted only where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by manifest illegality. Since the adjudicating authority, appellate authority, and revisional authority had all arrived at concurrent findings based on relevant documentary and oral evidence, no such ground existed in the present case.
Finding no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the customs authorities, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the confiscation of the undeclared gold along with the consequential penalty.
The Court concluded that the authorities had adopted a legally sustainable view based on the Customs Declaration Form, recovery proceedings, panchnama, and the petitioner’s own Section 108 statement, none of which justified interference under Article 226.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
