Delhi High Court · 2025

W.P.(C) 7637/2025 Page 1 of 5 $~1 (SDB) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7637/2025 SHABNAM PARVEEN .....Petitioner Through: None. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Mr. Ritwik Saha and Mr. Umang Misra, Advs. (M:7558898905) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 22.12.2025 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL.66133/2025 (for recall of order dated 28.05.2025) in W.P.(C) 7637/2025 2. The present application has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, seeking recall of order dated 28th May, 2025. 3. A brief background of the present case is that, the Petitioner had filed the present petition seeking release of the gold bars weighing a total of 300 gm (hereinafter, 8detained articles9) of the Petitioner which were detained by the Customs Department vide detention receipt dated 10th May, 2022. 4. The Petitioner, being an Indian citizen, was travelling from Thailand to Delhi on 10th May, 2022. Upon her arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi, the detained articles were seized by the concerned officials of the Customs Department. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2025 at 12:30:53 W.P.(C) 7637/2025 Page 2 of 5 5. Subsequently, an Order-in-Original was passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 4th August, 2022 (hereinafter, 8OIO9) to the following effect: <ORDER i) I deny the 8Free Allowance9 if any admissible to the Pax Ms Shabnam Parveen for not declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted her and recovered the detained goods from her. ii) I declare the passenger, the Pax Ms Shabnam Parveen is <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 <Two Gold pieces having purity 24kt and weighing 300 gms.= valued at Rs 14,58,557/-(Rupees Fourteen Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Fifty seven Only) (as on 10.05.2022) recovered from the Pax Ms Shabnam Parveen, under Section 111(d), 111(j), 111(l) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; iv) I also impose a penalty of Rs 2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Only) on the Pax Ms Shabnam Parveen under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. v) I also impose a penalty of Rs 2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Only) on the Pax Ms Shabnam Parveen under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.= 6. It is the case of the Petitioner that the OIO has been passed without the issuance of any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing notice. Thus the same is liable to be set aside. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2025 at 12:30:53 W.P.(C) 7637/2025 Page 3 of 5 7. Thereafter, the OIO was challenged by the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, while modifying the OIO has allowed the release of the detained articles vide order dated 9th May, 2023 (hereinafter, 8OIA9) in the following terms: < Order 6.0 In light of discussions and findings as above, I partially allow the appeal against O-in-O No. 154/2022-23 dated 08.08.2022 and order that the impugned Gold collectively weighing 300 grams, valued at Rs.14,58,557/- be released on payment of redemption fine of Rs.1,46,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty under Section 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is reduced to Rs.1,46,000/-. The Appeal is disposed with such modifications and consequential relief as above” 8. It is further submitted that the Customs Department has filed a revision petition against the OIA. However, for the last three years, the same has not been decided by the Revisional Authority. The Petitioner has sought timely hearing of the said revision petition. 9. On the previous date of hearing, vide order dated 28th May, 2025, this Court had directed as under: <8. It is seen in a number of matters listed before this Court that the Revisional Authority does not take decisions in a timely manner. In the present case as well, it has been more than 3 years and the matter is still pending before the Revisional Authority. 9. In such circumstances, the Revisional Authority is directed to decide the revision petition in the present case within a period of 2 months from the date of this order. It is, made clear that if the detained articles are directed to be released by the Revisional Authority, then no storage charges shall be liable to be collected for the period from the date of Order-in-Original till This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2025 at 12:30:53 W.P.(C) 7637/2025 Page 4 of 5 the final order of the Revisional Authority. 10. The Revisional Authority shall also bear in mind the fact that the Order-in-Original was itself passed without issuance of a show cause notice and personal hearing notice, which this Court has held to be contrary to law in several decisions including Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs [2025:DHC:751-DB]. All rights and remedies of the Petitioners are left open.= 10. The petition was disposed of in the above terms. Pursuant thereto, on 29th August, 2025 an application being CM. APPL. 54087/2025 for recalling of order dated 28th May, 2025 was filed by the Petitioner. Vide order dated 29th August, 2025 the Court had directed as under: <3. Ld. SSC for the Respondent submits that there is a change in the official who was acting as the Revisional Authority, hence, there is a delay in adjudication of the revision petition. 4. Heard. Considering the submissions made, the Revisional Authority is given one more month to decide the revision petition. If the Revisional Authority does not decide the matter within the time prescribed, the remedies of the Petitioner are left open.= 11. In terms of the above, an extension of one month was given to the Revisional Authority to decide the revision petition. Thereafter, the Revisional Authority also took some more time in deciding the matter and vide order dated 12th December, 2025, the revision petition has been dismissed in the following terms: <12. Thus, keeping in view the above facts and the judgement cited above, the Government finds no infirmity in the order of the First Appellate Authority, as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2025 at 12:30:53 W.P.(C) 7637/2025 Page 5 of 5 there is no convincing or substantial reason to interfere in the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.= 12. In view of the order passed by Revisional Authority, the OIA dated 9th May, 2023 is to be given effect to. In terms of the same, the Petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- as redemption fine and penalty of Rs. 1,46,000/-. 13. Let the Petitioner appear before the Customs Department either physically or through an Authorised Representative for seeking release of the detained articles, after making the payments in terms of the OIA. The following nodal officer shall facilitate the Petitioner in appearing before the Customs Department: Mr. Mukesh Gulia, Superintendent, Legal Office of Commissioner, Customs IGI Airports, T-3, New Delhi Email id: [email protected] Mobile No.: 9999922479 14. If the Petitioner is not appearing physically, she shall appear virtually for the purposes of verification of credentials and the letter of authority. 15. In the facts of this case, warehousing charges would not be liable to be paid by the Petitioner from the date of the OIO i.e., 4th August, 2022, till date of release. 16. The order of the Revisional Authority is taken on record and shall be retained on the file. 17. The application is disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J DECEMBER 22, 2025/dj/sm