Case Law Details
Haris Aslam Vs Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court directs Customs to release passenger’s seized gold per appellate order, ruling intent to file revision is no ground to withhold goods; Delhi High Court Orders Customs to Release Jewellery, Cites Precedent Against Bypassing Procedure
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Commissioner of Customs to release personal gold jewellery seized from an international passenger, asserting that the Customs Department cannot indefinitely withhold goods based merely on its intention to file a challenge against an appellate order. The court highlighted procedural lapses by Customs in the initial adjudication and reaffirmed that orders from appellate authorities must be respected and implemented unless stayed by a higher forum.
The case involves Mr. Haris Aslam, an Indian citizen residing in the UAE who works as a software engineer for Emirates Airlines and travels frequently to India. Upon his arrival at Delhi airport on March 23, 2024, Customs officials detained gold items he was wearing—a ring weighing 20 grams and a chain weighing 137 grams. The department’s reason for detention was the passenger’s alleged failure to declare the jewellery.
According to the Customs Department, Mr. Aslam had signed a waiver of his right to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and a personal hearing. Acting on this purported waiver, the Adjudicating Authority passed an Order-in-Original (OIO) on June 14, 2024. This order was stringent: it denied any ‘Free Allowance’ to Mr. Aslam, declared him an “ineligible Passenger” under the relevant Baggage Rules and notifications, ordered the absolute confiscation of the gold items (valued at over ₹9.85 lakh) under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962 (including Sections 111(d), (i), (j), & (m)), and imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh under Section 112(a) & (b).
Mr. Aslam challenged the OIO before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appellate authority, in its Order-in-Appeal (OIA) dated January 29, 2025, partially allowed the appeal. While upholding the ₹1 lakh penalty, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the absolute confiscation. Exercising powers under Section 125 of the Customs Act, which permits redemption of confiscated goods upon payment of a fine, the appellate order allowed the release of the gold items to Mr. Aslam for re-export to the UAE, subject to payment of a redemption fine of ₹1.48 lakh.
Despite the clear direction from the Commissioner (Appeals) for release upon payment, the Customs Department did not release the jewellery. Before the High Court, the department’s counsel revealed that the reason for withholding the goods was the department’s decision to file a revision petition against the OIA before the appropriate authority. This stance effectively meant the department was choosing not to comply with an operational appellate order while it prepared for or initiated further legal challenge.
Faced with the continued detention of his property despite a favourable appellate ruling, Mr. Aslam approached the Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He sought a judicial directive compelling the Commissioner of Customs to release the gold items as per the OIA dated January 29, 2025.
During the High Court proceedings, two critical factual points emerged. Firstly, it was confirmed that no formal SCN or personal hearing notice had been issued to Mr. Aslam before the initial confiscation order. Secondly, the court noted that the alleged waiver cited by Customs in the OIO appeared to be based on a standard form, rather than a genuinely voluntary and specific declaration by the petitioner waiving his fundamental procedural rights.
The High Court took a firm view on the Customs Department’s practice of obtaining waivers through standard formats. Citing its own previous Division Bench judgments, the court reiterated that such practices are contrary to the principles of natural justice and the mandatory requirements of the Customs Act. The court specifically referenced its ruling in Mr Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2025:DHC-1162-DB, where it had categorically held that making tourists sign standard undertakings waiving SCN and hearing violates Section 124 of the Customs Act and fundamental principles of natural justice, directing the department to cease this practice and adhere to the law in all confiscation cases.
Further bolstering its position on procedural due process, the court also referred to its decision in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:751-DB. In that judgment, the court had held that a printed waiver of SCN or statements in printed request forms cannot be considered compliance with the requirement of issuing an SCN under Section 124. The court in Amit Kumar had concluded that if the SCN requirement was not met, the detention of goods would be illegal, and the subsequent order passed without SCN and hearing would be unsustainable. By referencing these precedents, the Delhi High Court reinforced that the initial confiscation order against Mr. Aslam suffered from a significant procedural infirmity due to the invalid waiver process employed by the Customs Department.
More significantly, the High Court directly addressed the Customs Department’s primary argument for withholding the goods: the intention to file a revision. The court emphatically stated that a mere decision or intention to file a revision against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot legally justify withholding the release of goods that the appellate authority has directed to be released. The court underscored that there was no stay order obtained against the OIA from either the Commissioner (Appeals) itself or any higher forum. In the absence of a stay, the order of the appellate authority is binding and must be implemented by the subordinate authorities, including the Commissioner of Customs.
Based on its findings regarding both the initial procedural flaw (invalid waiver) and the department’s legally untenable position of not complying with a binding appellate order without a stay, the Delhi High Court concluded that Mr. Haris Aslam was entitled to the release of his gold items as per the terms stipulated in the Order-in-Appeal dated January 29, 2025.
The court issued clear directions for the release. It ordered that Mr. Aslam must deposit the redemption fine of ₹1.48 lakh and the upheld penalty of ₹1 lakh within one week. Upon confirmation of this payment and after verifying the credentials of Mr. Aslam or his authorized representative, the Customs Department was directed to release the seized gold items. The court also directed that no warehouse charges shall be levied upon Mr. Aslam for the period the goods were held after the date of the OIA, attributing the delay in release to the department’s incorrect stand.
The High Court’s judgment serves as a directive to the Customs authorities on adherence to both procedural fairness during adjudication and the hierarchical discipline of implementing appellate orders unless and until they are legally stayed or set aside. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, ensuring that Mr. Aslam can retrieve his personal jewellery upon complying with the financial conditions set by the appellate authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Haris Aslam under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondent- Commissioner of Customs to release the personal jewellery of the Petitioner e. gold ring weighing 20 grams and a gold chain weighing 137 grams (hereinafter, ‘gold items’) seized vide detention receipt bearing no. DR/INDEL4/23-03-2024/004056 dated 23rd March 2024 (hereinafter, ‘detention receipt’).
3. The Petitioner is an Indian citizen and resident of UAE having valid residence ID. He is a software engineer working in Emirates Airlines for at least 7 years at the time of filing of the present writ petition.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that being an employee of Emirates Airlines, he frequently travels to India to visit his family. On 23rd March, 2024, while travelling, he was wearing gold items which were detained by the Customs Department on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to declare the same.
5. According to the Customs Department, the Petitioner had signed the waiver and hence, no Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) was issued and no personal hearing was granted. The Order-in-Original has been passed on 14th June, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘OIO’) by which the absolute confiscation was directed in the following terms:
“i) I deny the ‘Free Allowance’ if any admissible to the Pax Mr. Haris Aslam for not declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted him and recovered the detained goods from him.
ii) I declare the passenger, Mr. Haris Aslam an “ineligible Passenger” for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended).
iii) I order absolute confiscation of the above said detained goods i.e. “(i) One unfinished gold chain having purity 996, weight 137 grams, valued at Rs.8,60,223/- (ii) One gold wire bent in circular shape having purity 996, weight 20 grams, valued at Rs. 1,25,580/- aforesaid gold jewellery collectively valued at Rs. 9,85,803/-” recovered from the Pax Mr. Haris Aslam and detained vide DR No. DR/INDEL4/23.03.2024/004056 dt. 23.03.2024, under Section 111 (d), 111 (i), 111 (j) & 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962;
iv) I also impose a penalty ofRs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) on the Pax, Haris Aslam under Section 112(a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.”
6. This OIO was challenged by the Petitioner in appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner vide passing of the Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/D-I/Airport/3645/2024-25 dated 29th January 2025 (hereinafter, ‘OIA’) allowed the said appeal in the following terms:
“6.0 In light of discussions and findings as above, I allow the appeal partially against OIO No. 1629/004056/ 23.03.2024/ WH/2024-25 dated 14-062024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi and impugned goods i.e. “(i) One unfinished gold chain having purity 996, weight 137 grams, valued at Rs.8,60,223/- (ii) One gold wire bent in circular shape having purity 996, weight 20 grams, valued at Rs.1,25,580/- (Total value Rs.9,85,803/-)” are allowed to be released to the appellant on payment of redemption fine of Rs.1,48,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty-Eight Thousand only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 for reexport to UAE. The penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) imposed on the Appellant under Section 112(a) & 112(b) ofthe Customs Act, 1962 is upheld. The Appeal is disposed off with such modifications and consequential relief as above.”
The Petitioner is, thus, praying for the release of gold items with an undertaking that he will re-export goods.
7. Counsel for the Respondent had sought time to take instructions on the last date of hearing. Today, ld. Counsel has submitted that the Customs Department has decided to approach the Revisional Authority against the said OIA.
8. Two important facts, which deserve to be noted, are that in the present case, neither the SCN nor the hearing notice has been issued. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has also not produced any voluntary signed waiver declaration.
9. It is clear from paragraph 4 of the OIO that the same appears to have been a standard form of waiver, which was signed by the Petitioner. The said paragraph reads as under:
“4. The AR Advocate Richa Kumari (Aadhar No. 8030 7269 1370) of The Pax Mr. Haris Aslam visited this office and submitted a letter dated 22.04.2024 wherein he submitted that he had arrived from Riyadh to IGI Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi by Flight No. G 9463 Dated 23.03.2024 and brought the above said detained goods. Hefurther requested that the said detained goods may please be appraised and released to him after observing necessary legal formalities. The Pax regretted his mistake of opting for Green Channel and also requestedfor lenient view in the matter. He is ready to pay the applicable Customs Duty, fine and penalty for the same after taking lenient view as these goods belong to him and were meant for personal use. He did not want any Show Cause Notice and Personal Hearing in the matter and requestedfor orderfor re-export.”
10. This Court has held in several matters that signing of waiver of SCN and waiver of personal hearing by a way of preprinted waiver form would be contrary to principles of natural justice and, in any case, cannot be recognized as legally followed procedure by this Court. In the cases of Mr Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2025:DHC-1162-DB and Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:751-DB this Court has discussed various issues arising in several cases where the goods have been detained from a tourist by the Customs Department, including the issue of personal jewellery being part of personal effects under the Baggage Rules, 2016 and waiver of SCN and personal hearing by way of a preprinted waiver form. The relevant extracts of the said decisions are as under:
Mr Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2025:DHC-1162-DB
“34. Since, the Court has made clear that the practice of making tourists sign undertaking in a standard form waiving the show cause notice and personal hearing is contrary to the provisions of Section 124 of the Act, hereinafter, the Customs Department is directed to discontinue the said practice. The Customs Department is expected to follow the principles of natural justice in each case where goods are confiscated in terms of Section 124 of the Act.”
Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:751-DB
“19. This Court is of the opinion that the printed waiver of SCN and the printed statement made in the request for release of goods cannot be considered or deemed to be an oral SCN, in compliance with Section 124. The SCN in the present case is accordingly deemed to have not been issued and thus the detention itself would be contrary to law. The order passed in original without issuance of SCN and without hearing the Petitioner, is not sustainable in law. The Order-in-Original dated 29th November, 2024 is accordingly set-aside”
11. Moreover, once the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has also allowed redemption, the decision to file revision cannot be a ground to withhold the release of the goods. Further, there is no stay which has been granted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
12. This Court is of the opinion that the items deserve to be released to the Petitioner in terms of the OIA dated 29th January, 2025.
13. Under these facts and circumstances, no warehouse charges shall be collected from the Petitioner.
14. The Petitioner shall deposit the redemption and penalty within one week as per the OIA.
15. After verifying the credentials of the Petitioner or Authorized Representative of the Petitioner, the goods shall be released to the Petitioner.
16. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Author Bio
