Delhi High Court: In a case concerning the redemption of 12 confiscated gold bars seized from the Petitioner at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, a Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Vimal Kumar Yadav, JJ., directed the Customs Authorities to quantify and communicate the applicable duty to the petitioner, observing that the petitioner had approached the respondents within the prescribed period seeking such quantification, but the respondents had failed to respond. The Court held that, in the facts of the case, the failure to exercise the option of redemption within the stipulated period could not be attributed solely to the petitioner, as the applicable duty had never been quantified despite his request, and accordingly directed release of the confiscated gold bars upon payment of the applicable duty, redemption fine, penalty and interest.
Background
The petitioner was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, while travelling from Delhi to Chennai, and was found carrying 12 gold bars weighing 1200 g, which were detained by the respondents. Subsequently, vide Order-in-Original dated 18 November 2022, the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, ordered confiscation of the said gold bars, while granting liberty to the petitioner to redeem the confiscated gold upon payment of the applicable duty, along with redemption fine and penalty of ₹ 50,000 each. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted an application dated 28 December 2022 seeking quantification of the applicable duty. However, the Department preferred an appeal against the Order-in-Original, which was dismissed on 3 August 2023 and the said order attained finality. Thereafter, under the assumption that the confiscated gold bars had been disposed of by the respondents, the petitioner sought refund, which application was rejected on 30 April 2024 on the ground that the same was premature.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition seeking, inter alia, quashing of the communication/order dated 8 August 2024 and issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to quantify the applicable duty so as to enable the petitioner to deposit the same and redeem the confiscated gold bars.
Analysis
The Court noted that the respondents did not dispute that the 12 gold bars seized from the petitioner were still available with them. While the respondents relied upon the decision in Gillette India Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs, (2019) 8 GSTR-OL 644, the Court observed that, although an option of redemption under Section 125, Customs Act, 1962 is required to be exercised within the period stipulated by the adjudicating authority, the facts of the present case stood on a different footing. The petitioner had approached the respondents within the prescribed period of 120 days from the Order-in-Original dated 18 November 2022, by submitting an application dated 28 December 2022 seeking quantification of the applicable duty so as to enable him to exercise the option of redemption. The said application was admittedly received by the respondents, but no response was furnished and the applicable duty was never quantified, though the redemption fine and penalty had been quantified. The Court, therefore, held that the petitioner had not committed any default in complying with the Order-in-Original and that the failure was attributable to the respondents. Accordingly, the decision in Gillette India Ltd. did not preclude the relief sought by the petitioner.
Decision
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to communicate the applicable duty payable in respect of the confiscated gold bars within 15 days. Upon such communication, the petitioner was directed to deposit the applicable duty, along with the redemption fine and penalty, together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent in terms of the Order-in-Original dated 18 November 2022. Upon receipt of the aforesaid amount, the respondents were directed to release the 12 gold bars to the petitioner.
Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Customs Penalty Over AI generated Fake Citations| SCC Times
[Prikshith Jhaver v. Commr. of Customs Terminal 3, W.P.(C) 3527 of 2025, decided on 10-9-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Anil Kshetarpal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Upender Thakur, Shreya Kardam and Karishma Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Anushree Narain, SCC along with Apurv Yadav and Naman Choula, Advocates