The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the Customs Department cannot withhold goods merely because it plans to file a revision plea against an order that directs their release. A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made it clear that once an appellate body allows the release of goods, filing a revision cannot justify withholding them.
The case arose when Haris Aslam, an Indian citizen working as a software engineer for Emirates Airlines in the UAE, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. His personal gold jewelry — a ring weighing 20 grams and a chain weighing 137 grams — was detained by customs officials at Delhi’s IGI Airport on March 23, 2024. The Customs Department claimed that Aslam failed to declare these items, leading to their confiscation without issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or granting a personal hearing.
Read Also:- [NDPS Act] Mere Absence of Recovery Not Enough for Bail if Nexus with Narcotic Network Exists: Delhi HC
The Customs Department initially passed an Order-in-Original (OIO) on June 14, 2024, ordering the absolute confiscation of the gold items and imposing a penalty of ₹1,00,000. The OIO stated:
"I declare the passenger, Mr. Haris Aslam, an 'ineligible passenger' for the purpose of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 read with Baggage Rules, 2016, and order absolute confiscation of the detained goods."
Challenging this decision, Aslam appealed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who partly allowed the appeal on January 29, 2025. The appellate authority permitted the release of the gold on payment of ₹1,48,000 as redemption fine, while upholding the penalty.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Suspends Medha Patkar’s Sentence in Defamation Case Filed by LG VK Saxena, Grants Bail
Despite this order, the Customs Department delayed releasing the jewelry, citing their intention to file a revision. However, the Court observed:
"Once the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has allowed redemption, the decision to file revision cannot be a ground to withhold the release of the goods. Further, there is no stay granted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)."
The Court also noted serious procedural lapses, highlighting that neither a Show Cause Notice nor a hearing notice was issued. Moreover, the so-called waiver allegedly signed by the petitioner was a pre-printed form, a practice the Court had earlier criticized in cases like Mr. Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner of Customs and Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs. In these rulings, the Court emphasized:
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: Originality in Hindustani Classical Music Exists Even Within Same Raga and Taal
"The practice of making tourists sign undertakings in a standard form waiving the show cause notice and personal hearing is contrary to Section 124 of the Customs Act. Customs must follow the principles of natural justice."
Based on these findings, the Delhi High Court directed the Customs Department to release Haris Aslam's jewelry without charging warehouse fees, after he deposits the redemption fine and penalty within one week. The Court concluded that:
"After verifying the credentials of the Petitioner or his Authorized Representative, the goods shall be released."
The petition was thus disposed of, reinforcing that administrative delays cannot override the rights confirmed by an appellate order.
Appearance: Ms. Richa Kumari, Adv for Petitioner; Mr. Avijit Dikshit, Standing counsel. Mr. Jatin Singh, Adv. for UOI
Case title: Haris Aslam v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4962/2025
