The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the confiscation of a gold chain, holding that such disputes must ordinarily be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism provided under the Customs Act, 1962.

The bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul declined to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and emphasized that the impugned order was an Order-in-Original, appealable under the Customs Act. The petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal, which must be exhausted first. Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.

The petitioner, Nand Kishor Sharma, approached the High Court seeking quashing of an Order-in-Original dated 20 February 2025, whereby customs authorities had confiscated a 100-gram gold chain valued at ₹6,38,040. The gold was recovered at IGI Airport, New Delhi, when the petitioner was arriving from Bangkok on 3 April 2024. 

In addition to confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, the authorities had imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000 under Sections 112(a) and 112(b). 

The petitioner raised multiple grounds challenging the action of the customs department, including: The gold chain formed part of personal effects and was worn during travel, thus not liable for confiscation; The seizure lacked “reasonable belief”, violating statutory safeguards; No notice under Section 124(a) was served within the prescribed period; He was allegedly detained for three days and coerced into signing documents; Denial of the statutory option of redemption under Section 125; and Violation of principles of natural justice

The Court noted that the issues raised—such as procedural lapses, absence of reasonable belief, and denial of opportunity—are questions of fact and law that can be adequately examined by the appellate authority. 

A crucial aspect highlighted by the Court was that entertaining the writ would effectively allow the petitioner to circumvent the statutory mechanism, especially where it appeared that the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired. 

The Court held that such an approach cannot be permitted, as it would undermine the legislative framework governing dispute resolution under the Customs Act.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court held that no case for interference was made out under its extraordinary jurisdiction. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy in accordance with law.

Case Details

Case Title: Nand Kishor Sharma Versus Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: JURISHOUR-965-HC-2026(Ker) 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 5444/2026

Date:  22nd April, 2026

Counsel For  Petitioner: P.K. Saxena, Adv.

Counsel For Respondent: Atul Tripathi, Senior Standing Counsel

Read More: Ranks & Salaries of DGGI Officers – 2026