No Justification for 17 Phones, Half Kilo Gold: Delhi HC Lets Customs Proceed Against Foreigner of Indian Origin

There can be no justification for anyone to carry 17 mobile phones into the country without declaring them, the Delhi High Court has held while coming down heavily on a foreigner of Indian origin accused of concealing high-value electronic items and gold jewellery during his arrival in India.

A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar recalled its earlier interim order and permitted the Customs Department to proceed in accordance with law after finding that the petitioner had concealed material facts and conveyed a misleading version while invoking the Court’s writ jurisdiction.

The case arose from the interception of the petitioner, a US citizen of Indian origin, at Indira Gandhi International Airport on the intervening night of November 14–15, 2025. The petitioner had arrived from Frankfurt with his wife and their 11-month-old child and attempted to pass through the Green Channel. Customs officials recovered a total of 17 mobile phones and assorted gold jewellery weighing 507.5 grams, concealed in a black backpack attached to the infant’s stroller. The Court also noted that 118.5 grams of gold jewellery of Indian origin and four iPhones were recovered and subsequently returned to the petitioner.

On December 3, 2025, the High Court passed an interim order directing release of certain seized items, including used jewellery and used iPhones, while allowing the Customs Department to adjudicate the remaining seized goods in accordance with law. The order followed the petitioner’s submissions alleging prolonged detention at the airport and asserting that several of the seized items were personal effects.

Subsequently, the Customs Department moved a review petition seeking recall of the December 3 order, placing on record CCTV footage, seizure memos, and recovery details, and contending that crucial facts had not been disclosed to the Court. While the review petition was pending, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the December 3 order; the contempt matter came up before the Court on December 9, 2025.

After examining the additional material, including CCTV footage, the Bench recorded that the petitioner and his family were carrying undeclared goods through the Green Channel in a concealed manner. The Court noted, “The Court has considered the matter. In terms of the above facts, the Customs Department has, therefore, taken a position that this is a case of outright smuggling and there was a deliberate intention on the part of the Petitioner to hide all the impermissible goods.”

Rejecting the explanation that the goods were brought for attending family weddings, the Court observed, “Clearly, this was not a case which would warrant interference of this Court under writ jurisdiction. A total of 17 mobile phones were brought by the Petitioner and his family and they were passing through the Green Channel, hiding the said phones in the infant child’s stroller. Further the total jewellery is more than 500 grams i.e., half a kilo of gold which was also being brought in a hidden manner.”

The Bench further held that the interim relief granted on December 3 was a consequence of incomplete and misleading pleadings, noting that a contrary impression of illegal detention had been conveyed to the Court.

In its final order dated December 11, 2025, the High Court recalled the December 3 order in its entirety and directed that the Customs Department may proceed in accordance with law, including issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court clarified that the petitioner would be entitled to respond to the notice and that any request for re-export would be considered during adjudication.

Recalling its earlier relief, the Court held, “Considering the gross concealment and the misleading nature of the case which was put up, which led to the order dated 3rd December, 2025, the Court is inclined to recall the said order.”

The Court also dismissed the contempt petition, observing that the petitioner, having concealed material facts, ought not to have invoked contempt jurisdiction. Costs of ₹10,000 were imposed on the petitioner, payable to the Customs Department within one week.

With this, both the writ proceedings and the contempt petition were disposed of.

Case Title: Mohit Mann v. UoI

Bench: Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar

Date: 12 December