Article 14 Cannot Be Invoked To Claim Parity In Illegality: Delhi High Court Dismisses Jeweller's Plea In Gold Smuggling Case

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a jeweller challenging the penalty imposed on him in a gold smuggling case, holding that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to claim parity in illegality with a co-accused.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul refused to interfere with the orders passed by the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the revisional authority, which had imposed a penalty of ₹16 lakh on the petitioner under the Customs Act, 1962.

The case arose from an incident in December 2017, when customs officials at the Indira Gandhi International Airport intercepted a passenger carrying nearly 1 kilogram of gold concealed in his baggage. During investigation, the passenger stated that he was acting as a carrier for the petitioner, a Ludhiana-based jeweller.

Subsequent inquiry revealed that the passenger had, on multiple occasions, smuggled gold into India at the behest of the petitioner. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, along with digital evidence including mobile phone data, indicated a nexus between the petitioner, the carrier, and a money exchanger involved in the transaction.

Based on this material, the authorities confiscated the seized gold, permitted its re-export upon payment of redemption fine, and imposed penalties on all involved, including the petitioner.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the penalty imposed on him was excessive and that he should be granted parity with the carrier, who had been allowed to re-export the gold on payment of a lesser penalty.

Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the principle of equality under Article 14 cannot be invoked to seek equal treatment in matters involving illegality.

“Merely because the said passenger was permitted to redeem and re-export the gold, that by itself, will not give leverage to the petitioner to claim parity with the other accused. It is settled position of law that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for seeking the relief in such an eventuality, claiming equal treatment to the person who have flouted the provision of law,” the Court observed.

It further noted that there was sufficient material on record to establish the petitioner's involvement in the smuggling operation.

It referred to statements recorded by customs officials under Section 108, stating that it constitutes substantive evidence and can be relied upon in adjudication proceedings.

As such, the petition was dismissed.

For Petitioner:  Advocates D S Chadha& Ms.Prabjyoti K Chadha

For Respondent: Advocates Vedansh Aanand, Senior Panel Counsel with Kush Garg for Union of India. Advocates Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel withMr.Iqbal Singh Bedi, Ms. Suhani Mathur&Mr.Jatin Kumar Gaur, Advocates for Customs.