Seized Gold Items Not Jewellery But Raw Gold Pieces Bent Into Bangle: Delhi HC Directs Appeal

The Delhi High Court while directing the appeal noted that seized gold items were not jewellery but raw gold pieces bent into bangles. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has observed that has disposed of a writ petition challenging the absolute confiscation of gold items seized at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, while granting significant procedural relief to the petitioner by permitting the filing of a statutory appeal without being barred by limitation. The case arose from a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, assailing an Order-in-Original dated 12 June 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Terminal-3, IGI Airport. By the impugned order, Customs authorities had directed the absolute confiscation of two gold items described as elongated pieces of gold bent into a kada or bangle shape, weighing a total of 116 grams. According to the petitioner, an Indian passport holder, the gold was seized when she returned to India on 29 February 2024 after undertaking a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia. Upon her arrival at the airport, Customs officials intercepted her and detained the gold items through a detention receipt issued on the same date. The petitioner approached the High Court contending that the confiscation order had been passed without issuance of a show cause notice and without granting her a personal hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Customs Department, however, disputed this claim and submitted before the Court that the petitioner had waived her right to the issuance of a show cause notice as well as the opportunity of personal hearing. In the course of proceedings, the Court directed the Customs authorities to produce the seized gold items before it. Pursuant to this direction, the gold was produced in a sealed box during the hearing. After examining the seized articles, the Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain observed that the items did not appear to be jewellery in the conventional sense. The Court noted that the seized articles were raw gold pieces bent into the shape of bangles or kadas, a finding that had relevance to the nature of the goods and the applicable customs treatment. While acknowledging that an Order-in-Original had already been passed by the Customs authorities, the High Court refrained from adjudicating the merits of the confiscation. Instead, it emphasized that the proper statutory remedy available to the petitioner was to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In order to balance equities, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file such an appeal by 31 January 2026 and directed that, if filed within this period, the appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The Court further directed that the appellate authority must adjudicate the appeal in accordance with law after granting a personal hearing to the petitioner. To ensure effective communication, it was ordered that the hearing notice be served on the email address and mobile number furnished on behalf of the petitioner. This direction effectively addressed the grievance regarding lack of opportunity of hearing raised before the High Court. Following the conclusion of the proceedings, the seized gold items produced before the Court were returned to the concerned Customs official present in Court. The writ petition was disposed of, along with all pending applications, bringing the High Court proceedings to a close while keeping the petitioner’s appellate remedy alive Case Details Case Title: Zubaida Aziz Through Spa Parvez Malik Versus The Commissioner Of Custom Case No.: W.P.(C) 15915/2025 Date: 20/12/2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Mohd. Ather Ansari Counsel For Respondent: Avijit Dikshit Click Here To Read Order Read More: Non Compete Fee Can Be Claimed As Revenue Expenditure: SC

Seized Gold Items Not Jewellery But Raw Gold Pieces Bent Into Bangle: Delhi HC Directs Appeal

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