'Writ Not Maintainable In Face Of Disputed Ownership': Delhi High Court In Customs Gold Confiscation Case
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a writ petition challenging confiscation of an air travellers' gold jewellery by the Customs, citing disputed ownership of the gold.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed,“The foundational facts of the petition itself would be different in as much as the detention receipt has been issued only to one lady...
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a writ petition challenging confiscation of an air travellers' gold jewellery by the Customs, citing disputed ownership of the gold.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed,
“The foundational facts of the petition itself would be different in as much as the detention receipt has been issued only to one lady but the gold is claimed by three ladies. The ownership of these bangles would have to be determined. These issues cannot be gone into in a Writ petition as these are disputed questions of fact.”
The Court was dealing with a peculiar case where the Petitioner claimed that the 7 gold bangles seized from her belong not just to her but to the three ladies who had travelled together.
The Department on the other hand argued that the Petitioner is not an eligible passenger under the Baggage Rules 2016 which defines an “eligible passenger" as a person of Indian Origin or a passenger holding Indian passport, returning to India after a period of not less than six months of stay abroad.
In the instant case, the Petitioner arrived in approximately 20 days and thus it was argued that she is ineligible to import gold at concessional rate of duty.
The Petitioner had challenged the detention receipt however the Customs submitted that an order for absolute confiscation had been passed since the detained gold was found to be over and above the prescribed quantity and value cap, as prescribed under Baggage Rules.
The High Court noted that no Show Cause Notice had been issued to the Petitioner and no hearing was granted.
As such, it permitted her to challenge the impugned confiscation order by way of statutory appeal, which has to be decided within 4 months.
Appearance: Dr. Ashutosh and Ms. Fatima Bano, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Mr. Jai Ahuja and Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advs for Respondent
Case title: Roovi v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9063/2025