Green Channel Violation Not Equal to Smuggling: Delhi HC Upholds Gold Redemption

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, challenging an order that permitted redemption of confiscated gold brought through the Green Channel. The bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that no interference was warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the revisional and appellate authorities had exercised their discretion judiciously. The case arose from the arrival of Ms. Shabnam Parveen at IGI Airport, New Delhi, from Bangkok on May 9, 2022. After crossing the Green Channel, she was intercepted by Customs officials. Two yellow metal cut-piece bars weighing 300 grams, suspected to be gold, were recovered from her possession. A detention receipt recorded the value at ₹14,07,210, later revised to ₹14,58,557 following appraisal. The Department alleged Green Channel violation and initiated proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. Her statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, wherein she allegedly admitted that the gold did not belong to her and that she had agreed to carry it for ₹15,000 without declaration. She also waived issuance of a show cause notice at that stage. However, over a month later, she filed a retraction claiming that the statement had been obtained under coercion and that blank papers were signed under threat. She further produced purchase invoices in her and her husband’s name, asserting ownership. The Joint Commissioner of Customs passed an Order-in-Original dated August 4, 2022, holding her to be an “ineligible passenger” under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus read with the Baggage Rules, 2016. The authority ordered absolute confiscation of the gold under Sections 111(d), 111(j), 111(l), and 111(m) of the Customs Act and imposed penalties of ₹2,25,000 each under Sections 112 and 114AA. On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) took note of the retraction and supporting documents, observing that the Department had not brought any independent material to disprove ownership. The appellate authority treated the case as one of non-declaration rather than organised smuggling or habitual offending. It permitted redemption of the gold under Section 125 of the Customs Act on payment of a redemption fine of ₹1,46,000 along with applicable duty, and reduced the penalties to ₹1,46,000 each. The Department challenged this before the Revisional Authority under Section 129DD, but the revision was dismissed on December 12, 2025. Aggrieved, the Commissioner approached the High Court. The High Court refused to interfere, reiterating that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not appellate in nature. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, the Bench emphasized that courts cannot reappreciate evidence unless there is jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality. The Court observed that the department had treated the matter as a case of non-declaration at the Green Channel, not as organised smuggling. The Department failed to dislodge the claim of ownership or establish that the respondent was a habitual offender or a mere carrier. The discretion under Section 125 to allow redemption was exercised after considering proportionality and the nature of the lapse. Even though the Department argued statutory ineligibility under baggage rules, the appellate order did not grant immunity but calibrated consequences by imposing duty, redemption fine, and penalty. The Court also rejected the contention that the Revisional Authority had exceeded its jurisdiction, noting that it merely affirmed the appellate reasoning without reappreciating evidence. The writ petition was dismissed. The respondent is entitled to release of the gold upon payment of Rs. 1,46,000 as redemption fine, Rs. 1,46,000 as penalty and applicable customs duty. The Court further clarified that warehousing charges would be governed by its earlier directions in connected proceedings. Case Details Case Title: The Commissioner Of Customs Versus Ms. Shabnam Parveen Citation: JURISHOUR-75-HC-2026(Del) Case No.: W.P.(C) 2417/2026 Date: 20/02/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Aditya Singla Counsel For Respondent: Senior Panel Counsel Dhan Mohan Click Here To Read Order Read More: GSTN Enables Opt-Out Facility for Taxpayers Registered Under Rule 14A

Green Channel Violation Not Equal to Smuggling: Delhi HC Upholds Gold Redemption

Membership Required

Latest articles

CESTAT Quashes Excise Duty Demand on Poultry Cage Weld Mesh

Commission Retained on Air Tickets Bought Through GSA/IATA Agents Not Taxable as Business Auxiliary Service

CENVAT Credit Can’t Be Denied on Duty-Paid Inputs from Area-Based Exempt Units: CESTAT

Ignoring Taxpayer’s Reply While Rejecting GST Refund Is Illegal: Bombay High Court

More like this

CESTAT Quashes Excise Duty Demand on Poultry Cage Weld Mesh

Commission Retained on Air Tickets Bought Through GSA/IATA Agents Not Taxable as Business Auxiliary Service

CENVAT Credit Can’t Be Denied on Duty-Paid Inputs from Area-Based Exempt Units: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories