Customs Can't Withhold Detained Goods Without Stay Of Confiscation Order: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the Customs Department has challenged an order before a revisional authority, it cannot withhold detained goods in the absence of any interim protection or stay against the operation of the order.

The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by a woman seeking release of her gold jewellery detained by Customs authorities at the Delhi airport.

Petitioner had arrived from Saudi Arabia and was intercepted by Customs officials and her jewellery was detained.

An order dated March 22, 2024 directed confiscation of the jewellery, while giving Petitioner an option of redemption upon payment of a fine of Rs. 1.55 lakh and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.

Petitioner subsequently succeeded in appeal. The Customs Department however, challenged the appellate order by way of a revision.

Before the High Court, Petitioner submitted that she was willing to comply with the conditions imposed in the March 22 order, but the goods were still not being released.

The Customs authorities informed the Court that the arguments in the revision had been heard on October 8, 2026, but the revision order was still awaited.

The Court noted that an issue arising in a number of cases was whether the department, after challenging an order and pursuing a statutory remedy, could refuse to release detained goods in the absence of interim protection from the appellate or revisional authority.

It also flagged the issue of the financial burden placed on a person whose goods remain detained during departmental litigation, particularly the liability to pay demurrage charges during the pendency of the appeal and revision.

Considering that the arguments in the revision had already been heard, the High Court directed Petitioner to comply with the conditions imposed in the March 22 order within three weeks.

It directed that, subject to the outcome of the revision, Petitioner's request for release of the goods be considered within two weeks of such compliance.

“Non-receipt of revision order in the intervening period shall not be an impediment for release of detained goods as there is no stay of operation of OIO,” the Court said.

For Petitioner: Mr. Mohammed Ather Ansari, Ms. Anam Majid and Ms. Arpita Sen, Advs.