Passenger’s Claim that Seized Gold Was ‘Old and Used’ not Correct: Delhi HC Rejects Claim, Directs to file Appeal [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a passenger’s claim that the gold jewellery seized from him at the IGI Airport was “old and used,” after physically inspecting the items and finding that most pieces were clearly new and purchased abroad.

The petitioner, Sukhbir Singh, had approached the Court challenging the Order-in-Original dated 31 May 2024, through which Customs authorities confiscated two gold chains and one gold pendant seized upon his arrival from Qatar on 3 February 2024.

While the Commissioner of Customs permitted redemption of the pendant on payment of fine and duty, the two chains were ordered to be absolutely confiscated, and a penalty of ₹1,35,000 was imposed.

The petitioner, Sikhbir Singh argued that the seized jewellery constituted old personal ornaments and that he was compelled to sign a pre-printed waiver of the show-cause notice (SCN), without being granted any personal hearing.

Know the complete aspects of tax implications of succession, Click here

The Court had previously ordered Customs officials to present the confiscated jewelry for examination. The petitioner's claim was refuted by the Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar, who examined the items in court and discovered that all but one small chain were clearly new.

The Court observed that the pieces “appear to have been purchased from abroad,” and therefore the plea that the jewellery was old and personal could not be accepted. The Court also noted procedural lapses, especially the absence of an SCN and lack of personal hearing, both of which arose because Customs relied upon a waiver allegedly signed at the airport.

Also Read:Adjudicating Authority Arbitrarily Cancels GST Registration of boAt Parent Company: Delhi HC Imposes 25k Cost on Officer [Read Order]

Despite these concerns, the Court refrained from interfering with the Order-in-Original at the writ stage. Considering that the order had already been passed and that some of the items were found to be new and dutiable, the Court held that the appropriate remedy would be to pursue a statutory appeal.

As a result, the petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal on or before 15 January 2026, with a specific direction that if filed within this period, the appeal shall not be rejected on limitation grounds and must be decided on merits.

The Court further directed that a personal hearing notice be issued to the petitioner’s counsel at the email and mobile number specified in the order. The seized gold articles were resealed and handed back to Customs officials.

With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of. The court left the petitioner to challenge the confiscation order through the appellate channel rather than through direct writ intervention.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates