Delhi High Court Refuses Writ Against Gold Chain Confiscation, Cites Alternate Remedy Under Customs Act

The Delhi High Court has recently refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the confiscation of a gold chain under the Customs Act, 1962, reiterating that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to bypass an available statutory remedy of appeal.

A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed the petition filed against an order confiscating a 100-gram gold chain from the Petitioner on his return to India from Bangkok.

The petitioner was intercepted at IGI Airport, New Delhi, and the authorities recovered a gold chain weighing 100 grams, valued at Rs. 6.38 lakh, which was subsequently confiscated under various provisions of the Customs Act. A penalty of ₹1 lakh was also imposed.

Challenging the confiscation, the petitioner contended that the gold chain formed part of his personal effects and was not liable to duty or confiscation. He further alleged illegal detention, lack of reasonable belief for seizure, non-service of notice within the prescribed period, and denial of a fair hearing.

The Court however declined to examine the merits of these contentions, observing that an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available against the impugned order under Customs Act.

“The contentions sought to be raised by the petitioner, including those pertaining to alleged procedural irregularities, absence of reasonable belief, and denial of opportunity, are all issues which can be appropriately agitated before the appellate authority, which is competent to examine both facts and law,” it said.

The Court further held that the petitioner had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstance warranting interference by the High Court.

“Entertaining the present writ petition, despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, would amount to permitting the petitioner to circumvent the statutory mechanism provided under the Act, more so, when it appears that the period of limitation for availing the remedy of appeal has expired and the petitioner has approached this Court in an attempt to bypass the same,” the Court added and dismissed the petition.

For Petitioner: Advocate P.K. Saxena

For Respondent: Senior Standing Counsel (CBIC) Atul Tripathi with Advocates Shubham Mishra, Gaurav Mani Tripathi, Akshay Sagar and Madhav Anand; Senior Standing Counsel Anushree Narain with Advocates Naman Choula and Yamit Jetley.