Delhi High Court Refuses Release Of Customs-Detained Gold Over Disputed Coercion Claim

The Delhi High Court has held that a disputed claim that a passenger was coerced into signing documents admitting non-declaration of goods cannot, by itself, justify their release in writ jurisdiction.

The court cannot accept such a version over contemporaneous documents bearing the passenger's signatures when it raises disputed questions of fact.

The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition seeking release of two gold bars, which had been detained from Petitioner at Delhi airport after crossing the Green Channel.

In his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, it was recorded that Petitioner had intentionally not declared the gold and was willing to pay the applicable customs duty, fine and penalty.

Subsequently, Petitioner purportedly submitted a written request for release of the goods, stating that he had opted for the Green Channel without declaring the dutiable goods, expressed regret and requested a lenient view. He also stated that he did not want a written Show Cause Notice or personal hearing and that an oral Show Cause Notice had been received.

Before the High Court however, Petitioner claimed that he had actually declared the gold at the Red Channel and that Customs officials had made him sign pre-written documents and blank papers. He also alleged that the statement relied upon by the Department was false and had been obtained through coercion.

The Bench noted that Petitioner's coercion allegation was “a disputed factual assertion”, particularly since there was no contemporaneous retraction of his Section 108 statement.

Further, his subsequent written request did not allege that his earlier statement had been forcibly obtained or that its contents were incorrect.

“The Petitioner's explanation that he was coerced into signing the documents is a disputed factual assertion. No contemporaneous retraction of the statement dated 10.04.2023 has been brought to our notice. Likewise, the Petitioner did not, in his written request dated 08.05.2023, allege that his earlier statement had been forcibly obtained or that the contents thereof were incorrect.”, the court noted.

As such, the court held that Petitioner's subsequent assertion that he had declared the gold at the Red Channel raised a disputed question of fact that could not be satisfactorily adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It also declined to examine the alleged CCTV footage, observing that doing so would require appreciation of evidence and determination of disputed questions of fact, which is not ordinarily appropriate in writ jurisdiction.

At the same time, the Court clarified that it was not approving the practice of mechanically obtaining pre-printed waivers of statutory safeguards under Section 124 of the Customs Act and cautioned that statutory requirements must be complied with in accordance with law.

For Petitioner: Advocate Ashutosh; Advocate Fatima; Advocate Rohit Swarup; Advocate Dalip Singh; Advocate Avinash Kumar Singh; Advocate Pravej Hasan; Advocate Abhijeet Sagar; Advocate S. Vijaykanth.

For Respondent: Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC Aditya Singla; Advocate Arya; Advocate Dhananjay Gautam; Advocate Akhil Sharma; Advocate Sakshi Chandna; Advocate Nehaol.