Refusing to direct unconditional release of the seized gold, the Delhi High Court has ruled that protection under Article 300A of the Constitution does not entitle a passenger (petitioner) to bypass the statutory process where competent Customs authorities have initiated action. Accordingly, the Court held that a passenger who crossed the Green Channel at Delhi airport and had a 58-gram yellow metal chain recovered from her possession cannot secure unconditional release of the article by approaching the High Court after a delay of approximately 938 days without disclosing her own contemporaneous statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Court said that an extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and equitable, and a petitioner invoking it must approach the Court with reasonable promptitude and place before it the complete and material factual record, including admissions made under Section 108 of the Act. Further, the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja [Civil Appeal No.3489/2024] lays down the legal consequences of non-compliance with the statutory safeguards under Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, but the precedent must be applied having regard to the factual and statutory context of each case and cannot be invoked mechanically by suppressing material contemporaneous admissions.
A bald assertion that goods constitute bona fide personal effects cannot entitle a petitioner to a writ of release where the contemporaneous Detention Receipt itself records the value as ‘to be appraised’ and the statutory authorities dispute the factual foundation, since such disputed questions of fact are not ordinarily adjudicated in writ proceedings, added the Court.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain observed that the petition was instituted after approximately 938 days, and the petitioner’s bald assertion that she was repeatedly approaching the Department was conspicuously devoid of particulars, as no dates, no names or designations of officers, and no contemporaneous representation, letter, email or acknowledgment had been placed on record. Equally significant was the fact that the Writ Petition did not disclose the complete contemporaneous record, particularly the statement under Section 108 of the Act, and there was no contemporaneous retraction of that statement.
The Court further observed that the Detention Receipt itself recorded the value of the article as ‘to be appraised’, meaning that the nature, composition, purity and value of the article were yet to be finally determined through the appropriate process. The Court held that disputed questions of fact, including whether the article was genuinely an old and used personal effect, its composition, purity, value and the consequences flowing from the Petitioner’s conduct at the time of arrival, cannot ordinarily be conclusively adjudicated in writ proceedings on the basis of unilateral assertions.
Briefly, a passenger, Nahid Zakiya, arrived at Terminal-3 of the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from the United Arab Emirates on 28 June 2023. After crossing the Green Channel, she was intercepted by the Customs authorities and one yellow metal chain appearing to be gold, weighing 58 grams, was recovered from her possession. The article was detained with the reason recorded as ‘Green Channel Violation’ and the value recorded as ‘to be appraised’.
On the very same date, the Petitioner tendered a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, in which she admitted crossing the Green Channel, that the recovered article belonged to her, that she was aware of the Customs duty liability, and that she had intentionally not declared the article. She further agreed to the description, quantity and value to be assessed by the Department, expressed willingness to pay the applicable duty, fine and penalty, and stated that she did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. The statement was recorded as voluntary and without duress.
The Petitioner thereafter approached the Delhi High Court approximately 938 days after the incident, seeking unconditional return of the chain and waiver of warehouse and handling charges. Significantly, the Writ Petition was completely silent about her own contemporaneous statement under Section 108 of the Act and proceeded on the assertion that no opportunity of being heard was granted to her.
