The Delhi High Court has refused to order the unconditional release of a 58-gram gold chain detained by Customs after a passenger crossed the Green Channel at Delhi airport, holding that substantial delay, non-disclosure of her contemporaneous statement and disputed questions of fact disentitled her to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Shail Jain dismissed the writ petition filed against the Commissioner of Customs. However, the Court directed the competent authority to expeditiously complete the appraisement and consequential proceedings, preferably within three months from the date the passenger cooperates and makes herself available.
The bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on whether the chain was liable to confiscation or whether any customs duty, fine or penalty was payable. These issues were left for determination by the competent Customs authority under the Customs Act, 1962.
Buy Now: Customs Duty E-Magazine – August 2026
The petitioner arrived at Terminal 3 of the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi from the United Arab Emirates on June 28, 2023. According to the contemporaneous Customs record, she was intercepted after crossing the Green Channel.
During the examination, Customs officers recovered a yellow metal chain appearing to be gold and weighing 58 grams. The article was detained under a detention receipt dated June 28, 2023, which recorded the reason as “Green Channel Violation”.
The receipt described the article as a yellow metal chain appearing to be made of gold. Its value was recorded as “to be appraised”, indicating that the composition, purity and value of the article had not been finally determined.
On the same day, the passenger tendered a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The statement recorded that she had crossed the Green Channel, that the chain belonged to her and that she was aware customs duty was payable on the imported goods.
The statement further recorded that she had intentionally not declared the article. She agreed to the description, quantity and value to be assessed by the Customs Department and expressed her willingness to pay the applicable duty, fine and penalty.
Significantly, the statement also recorded that she did not require a written show cause notice or personal hearing. It stated that it had been tendered voluntarily, understood by her in the vernacular and made without duress, pressure or threat.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside the Customs action and secure the return of the chain. She also sought waiver of the warehouse and handling charges arising from its continued retention.
Her principal argument was that the chain was used personal jewellery and, therefore, constituted a bona fide personal effect. She contended that Customs had failed to issue a show cause notice within the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act.
On that basis, she asserted that the continued retention of the article was illegal and that it was liable to be returned unconditionally.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, concerning the consequences of failure to comply with the statutory timeline for issuing notice. The petitioner also relied on the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Saba Simran v. Union of India to contend that genuine personal jewellery should not be treated in the same manner as goods imported for commercial purposes.
It was further argued that the continued retention of the chain, without completing the proceedings, violated the constitutional protection of property under Article 300A.
The Customs Department opposed the petition on the grounds of material non-disclosure, delay and laches.
It argued that the petition did not disclose the passenger’s statement recorded under Section 108 on the date of the interception. According to the Department, that statement contained material admissions regarding the Green Channel violation, intentional non-declaration and willingness to pay duty, fine and penalty.
Customs also pointed out that the passenger had stated that she did not require a written show cause notice or personal hearing. The statement was never contemporaneously retracted, and no complaint or representation disputing its voluntariness was produced before the Court.
The Department further submitted that the writ petition had been instituted after approximately 938 days. Although the petitioner claimed that she repeatedly approached the authorities and was asked to wait, she did not provide the dates of such visits, the names or designations of the officers contacted, or any letter, email, representation or acknowledgment supporting her claim.
Customs also disputed the contention that the chain had been conclusively established to be old personal jewellery. It maintained that questions relating to its composition, value, status under the baggage rules and the passenger’s conduct involved disputed facts that could not be conclusively adjudicated in writ proceedings.
The High Court observed that its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable. A person invoking that jurisdiction must approach the Court with reasonable promptitude and disclose the complete material record necessary for adjudication.
The incident occurred on June 28, 2023, whereas the writ petition was instituted on January 21, 2026—approximately 938 days later.
The Court found that the explanation offered for this prolonged delay was unsupported by particulars or documentary material. A bald assertion that the passenger had repeatedly approached Customs could not satisfactorily explain inaction extending over more than two-and-a-half years.
The Bench also found the omission of the Section 108 statement from the petition significant. While the petition proceeded on the allegation that the petitioner was never given an opportunity to present her version, the contemporaneous statement contained admissions regarding the circumstances of recovery and her failure to declare the chain.
The Court noted that there was no contemporaneous retraction of the statement. No representation or complaint was produced to show that the passenger had immediately disputed its correctness or voluntariness.
The High Court nevertheless cautioned that the statutory consequences arising under Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act must be determined according to the statutory scheme.
It observed that compliance with the statutory requirements could not be dispensed with merely by making a general reference to a passenger’s statement.
At the same time, the Court said that it could not decide the petition by ignoring that contemporaneous statement and relying exclusively on the subsequent narrative presented in the writ petition.
The Bench declined to give an abstract ruling on the precise legal effect of every part of the statement for the purposes of Sections 110 and 124. It held, however, that an unconditional writ of release could not be obtained by suppressing or omitting the material contemporaneous record.
The Court found that the passenger’s contention that the chain used personal jewellery could not be accepted merely on her assertion.
The detention receipt described it only as a 58-gram yellow metal chain appearing to be gold, with its value still “to be appraised”. Therefore, the contemporaneous record showed that its nature and value had yet to be determined through the prescribed process.
According to the Bench, several issues required factual examination, including whether the chain was genuinely an old personal effect, its composition, purity and value, its treatment under the applicable baggage regime, and the consequences of the passenger’s conduct upon arrival.
Such seriously disputed questions of fact could not ordinarily be adjudicated conclusively in proceedings under Article 226, particularly when the Customs Act provided a mechanism for their examination by the competent authority.
The Court accordingly refused to declare that the chain was bona fide used personal jewellery entitled to unconditional or duty-free clearance.
Addressing the passenger’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jatin Ahuja, the High Court accepted that statutory safeguards under the Customs Act must be complied with and that the consequences of non-compliance with Section 110(2) must be determined according to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
However, it held that a precedent must be applied in light of the particular factual and statutory context of each case.
The present dispute involved a detention receipt recording a Green Channel violation and a contemporaneous Section 108 statement containing admissions about intentional non-declaration and willingness to undergo assessment.
Consequently, the Supreme Court’s ruling could not automatically entitle the petitioner to unconditional release without examination of the complete factual and procedural record.
The Bench similarly distinguished the Delhi High Court’s decision in Saba Simran, observing that whether an article constitutes genuine personal jewellery or a bona fide personal effect necessarily depends on the facts of each case.
The High Court also rejected the Article 300A argument at this stage.
It observed that while property rights are protected in accordance with law, the Court could not direct unconditional release and bypass the statutory Customs process where the authorities had initiated action and the relevant factual foundation remained disputed.
The Court also declined to decide the request for waiver of warehouse and handling charges. It left that question open for consideration by the adjudicating authority.
Concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish a case for unconditional release, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Bench held that the petition suffered from unexplained and substantial delay, failed to disclose the passenger’s material Section 108 statement and raised disputed factual issues that could not be conclusively decided on unilateral assertions.
Since Customs expressed its readiness to complete the necessary proceedings, the Court directed the competent authority to undertake the appraisement and further proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date the passenger or her authorised representative provides the necessary cooperation.
The passenger was directed to furnish all documents and information lawfully required by the competent authority.
The Court expressly left open the ultimate questions concerning confiscation, customs duty, fine and penalty.
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.
