'Remained Inactive For Several Years': Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Writ Against Customs Gold Seizure

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the confiscation of a 116-gram gold bar seized by Customs in December 2020, noting that the petitioner remained “inactive for several years” and approached the Court only in 2025.

The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain observed that Petitioner was aware of the seizure but did not take any steps in respect of it for several years.

The Court also noted that the confiscation order passed by Customs in June 2023 was not challenged before the statutory appellate authority.

For context, Petitioner had arrived at Delhi airport from when he was intercepted and a gold bar was recovered.

In his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, Petitioner stated that the gold bar had been given to him by a friend, that he had intentionally attempted to clear it through the Green Channel without declaring it or paying customs duty, and that he admitted his omission.

The statement also recorded that he did not require a show cause notice and that the case could be decided on merits.

Customs subsequently passed the impugned order of absolute confiscation under Section 111 and imposed penalty under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA.

Petitioner approached the High Court in 2025, contending that he had never been served with a show cause notice or given an effective opportunity of hearing. He also challenged the validity of the statement relied upon by Customs as a waiver of the show cause notice requirement.

The High Court however declined to examine these issues in its writ jurisdiction, stating that the challenge involved examination of the adjudication record, including the statement relied upon by Customs, subsequent communications and the circumstances in which the adjudication proceedings were conducted.

Such issues, the Court held, ought not to be examined for the first time under Article 226, particularly when the Customs Act provides a specific statutory appeal against the adjudication order under Section 128.

The Court further emphasised the petitioner's delay.

“The present Petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches. The Petitioner was admittedly aware of the seizure of the gold bar on 06.12.2020. The record further shows that a public notice was issued by the Customs authorities calling upon the concerned passengers to approach the Department in respect of detained/seized valuable goods within the stipulated period, failing which further process for disposal would be initiated. The Petitioner did not approach the Department pursuant to the said notice. The adjudication proceedings thereafter culminated in the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023, yet the Petitioner did not challenge the said order before the statutory appellate authority or approach this Court until the filing of the present Petition in 2025. No satisfactory explanation for this prolonged inaction has been furnished.”

As such, the Court dismissed the petition.

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

For Respondent: Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC Atul Tripathi; Advocate Akshay Sagar; and Advocate Shubham Mishra.