Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, observed that in numerous customs-related cases, counsels either failed to appear or attended proceedings without proper instructions. This situation reflected a clear lack of coordination between the Customs Department and its panel of standing counsels. The court found such a practice highly undesirable, as it resulted in a significant waste of judicial time.

Rahul, an Indian citizen employed in the UAE, arrived at Terminal 3 of IGI Airport, New Delhi, on April 9, 2024, to attend a marriage ceremony in Guruvayur. Upon his arrival, the Customs Department detained his 32-gram gold chain, despite his assertion that it was personal jewelry. The invitation card for the wedding was submitted as evidence in support of his claim.

Subsequently, the Customs Department issued an Order-in-Original on November 13, 2024, imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,000 and permitting the redemption of the gold chain upon payment of Rs. 25,000 for re-export. Rahul challenged this order in court, arguing that he had not been granted a proper hearing. His legal counsel submitted photographic evidence showing him wearing the chain before his travel.

Despite advance notice being served, the Customs Department failed to appear before the court. The court took note of the recurring issue where departmental counsels either remained absent or appeared without proper instructions, leading to judicial delays. 

Upon reviewing the Order-in-Original, the court found that the Customs Department had relied on a standardized waiver form, allegedly signed by Rahul, to bypass the requirement of a show cause notice and personal hearing. Citing previous judgments in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs and Mr. Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs, the court held that such a waiver, obtained through a standard format, was contrary to law and violated principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that Section 124 of the Customs Act mandated the issuance of a show cause notice, an opportunity to submit a representation, and a personal hearing before any confiscation could be deemed lawful.

Furthermore, the Customs Department had classified Rahul as an "ineligible passenger" under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs and the Baggage Rules, 2016. However, the court held that personal jewelry could not be subjected to confiscation under such provisions. The Baggage Rules permitted the clearance of personal jewelry up to 20 grams for male passengers and 40 grams for female passengers returning to India after residing abroad for over a year.

Based on these findings, the court ruled that the detention of Rahul's gold chain was unlawful. The Order-in-Original was set aside, reaffirming that standardized waivers could not substitute due process. The court reiterated that procedural safeguards must be upheld to prevent undue hardship on passengers and travelers.

For Petitioner: Advocates Kavitha K.T., Subhash Chandra, S. Gopal and Syam Krishna
Case Title: Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v Union (2025:DHC:1444-DB)