The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Bench, has ruled in favour of a passenger who was accused of smuggling gold, holding that the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, were not applicable to the case as the individual was a transit passenger who had not crossed immigration.
The bench Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) observed that the appellant has not crossed the green channel and had not even gone for immigration and the appellant was a transit passenger who was coming from Bangkok and going to Dubai via New Delhi. The appellant has not crossed the immigration. Therefore, the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable to the facts of the case. Hence, the objection raised by the learned Authorized Representative is turned down.
The case arose from an incident dated May 25, 2018, when Customs officials at IGI Airport, New Delhi, acting on specific intelligence, intercepted three passengers — including the appellant — who had arrived from Bangkok and were scheduled to board different outbound flights to Dubai and Hyderabad. The appellant was allegedly supposed to hand over gold to two other individuals in exchange for foreign currency.
Upon interception and a subsequent search, Customs recovered 1215 grams of gold concealed in the appellant’s rectum. The gold was absolutely confiscated and a penalty was imposed on the appellant. This action was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
However, the appellant challenged this order before CESTAT, arguing that he never crossed the green channel nor completed immigration clearance, as he was merely in transit between two international flights.
The Customs department contended that the matter fell under the “baggage” category, thereby excluding it from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The court overruled this objection, stating that since the passenger did not cross immigration or the green channel, the Customs Act did not apply.
“It is a fact on record that the appellant has not crossed the green channel and even not gone for immigration… the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable to the facts of the case. Hence, the objection raised… is turned down,” the tribunal said.
With this observation, the Tribunal held that the confiscated gold was not liable for seizure and that no penalty could be imposed on the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the order for confiscation and penalty was set aside.
Case Details
Case Title: Jai Kishan Choudhary Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 55378 Of 2023
Date: 16.07.2025
Counsel For Appellant: Prabjyoti K. Chadha, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Rohit Issar, Authorized Representative
- ED Raids Anil Ambani-Linked Firms Over Rs. 3,000 Cr Yes Bank Loan Fraud; SBI Labels Him ‘Fraud’ Account Holder - July 24, 2025
- Customs Act Applies, But Baggage Rules Don’t Cover Transit Passengers: CESTAT Issues Corrigendum - July 24, 2025
- Cheque Bounce Complaint Valid Even Without Naming Partnership Firm as Accused: Supreme Court - July 24, 2025
