Absolute Confiscation of Undeclared Gold Bar Carried Through Green Channel Upheld: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has upheld the absolute confiscation of a 250-gram gold bar seized from an international passenger who attempted to bring the gold into India without declaration by misusing the green channel at the airport. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has sustained the penalty imposed by Customs authorities, finding no procedural or legal infirmity in the adjudication process. The case arose from a writ petition filed by an Indian national passenger who arrived at Terminal-3 of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Saudi Arabia on 19 July 2023. During profiling and screening by Customs officials, a gold bar weighing 250 grams and bearing purity 999 was recovered from his possession. The gold was valued at approximately Rs. 13.73 lakh. The passenger had crossed through the green channel without declaring the gold. His statement was recorded on the same day under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the continued detention of the gold and alleging non-issuance of a show cause notice (SCN), the passenger approached the Delhi High Court seeking release of the seized gold. At an interim stage in February 2025, the High Court directed that the gold bar, if not already disposed of, should not be disposed of during the pendency of the petition. Subsequently, Customs authorities granted the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, accepted written submissions, and passed an Order-in-Original dated 14 October 2025. The adjudicating authority concluded that the passenger had deliberately misused the green channel facility with the intention to smuggle gold into India. It was also held that the passenger was an “ineligible passenger” under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs, as amended, read with the Baggage Rules, 2016, since his duration of stay abroad did not satisfy the prescribed conditions for concessional import of gold. The Customs department relied on travel details obtained from the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), which showed that the passenger had undertaken short international trips, rendering him ineligible to import gold at concessional rates. The adjudicating authority further held that a gold bar could not be treated as a “personal effect” under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and that the value of the gold exceeded the permissible baggage allowance. The Customs department also recorded a clear finding of mens rea, noting that the passenger had crossed the green channel without declaration and attempted to remove the gold from the Customs area without payment of duty. On these grounds, the gold bar was held to be “prohibited goods” liable for confiscation under multiple provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. While considering the option of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, the adjudicating authority observed that redemption is discretionary and not a matter of right. Given the deliberate non-declaration, concealment, and intention to smuggle, the authority declined to grant redemption on payment of fine and ordered absolute confiscation of the gold bar. A penalty of Rs. 1.40 lakh was also imposed under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act. The court examined the record and upheld the Order-in-Original. The Court noted that principles of natural justice had been fully complied with, as the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing pursuant to the Court’s own directions. Rejecting the argument that Section 110(2) of the Customs Act had been violated, the Court observed that the petitioner had failed to offer any justification for crossing the green channel with undeclared gold. The Court found no contradiction or procedural illegality in the issuance or waiver of the show cause notice, especially since adequate opportunity was subsequently granted during adjudication. Holding that the confiscation and penalty were justified in the facts of the case, the High Court declined to interfere with the Customs order and dismissed the writ petition, while leaving the petitioner’s statutory remedies open. Case Details Case Title: Ruman Khan Versus UOI Case No.: W.P.(C) 2513/2025, CM APPL.48622/2025 & CM APPL.79311/2025 Date: 18/12/2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Ashish Pandey Counsel For Respondent: Shashank Dixit Click Here To Read Order Read More: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 10 Crore GST Evasion Case

Absolute Confiscation of Undeclared Gold Bar Carried Through Green Channel Upheld: Delhi HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

EDCT Machine Rentals Attract VAT as ‘Transfer of Right to Use Goods’: Karnataka High Court

SHIS Benefit Can’t Be Denied by Treating Capital Goods as Mere Parts; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 1.30 Crore Customs Demand

No Social Welfare Surcharge Payable Where Basic Customs Duty Is Fully Exempt Under MEIS/SEIS Schemes: CESTAT

Registry Can’t Decide Complex Legal Issues: GSTAT Refers Appeal Over Pre-Deposit Linked to Amalgamated Entity

More like this

EDCT Machine Rentals Attract VAT as ‘Transfer of Right to Use Goods’: Karnataka High Court

SHIS Benefit Can’t Be Denied by Treating Capital Goods as Mere Parts; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 1.30 Crore Customs Demand

No Social Welfare Surcharge Payable Where Basic Customs Duty Is Fully Exempt Under MEIS/SEIS Schemes: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories