Finding that brand new iPhones and more than half a kilo of gold jewellery were passed through the green channel by hiding the same in the infant child’s stroller, the Delhi High Court ruled that non-disclosure of said facts in the writ petition, and conveying a contrary impression of illegal detention by the Customs Department, is gross concealment.
Accordingly, the Court recalled its earlier order passed on December 03, 2025, and dismissed the contempt petition filed by the petitioners. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 10000 on the petitioners for concealing the material facts under which the Customs Authorities had detained the goods at the airport.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed that a total of 17 mobile phones along with more than half a kilo of gold were brought by the petitioner and his family, and they were passed through the Green channel, hiding the said phones in the infant child’s stroller.
The Bench said that there can be no justification for anyone to carry 17 mobile phones into the country, that too without declaring the same. Even attending weddings cannot justify bringing in half a kilo of gold jewellery without declaring the same to the Customs authorities.
Considering that the detention was itself made on the intervening night of 14th-15th November, 2025, and in view of the gross concealment and the misleading nature of the case which was put up, which led to the order dated 3rd December, 2025, the Bench recalled the said order.
The Bench therefore directed the Customs Department to proceed in accordance with law, after issuing a Show Cause Notice in terms of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. As the petitioner had filed a contempt petition against the Customs Department, after concealing certain material facts, the Bench imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 to be paid to the Customs Department.
Briefly, the Customs Department sought a review of order dated December 03, 2025, which was passed, based on the submissions made before the Court to the extent that were a total of 30 items which were detained by the Customs Department, which consisted of used jewellery & I-phones; that the petitioner, his wife, and infant child were subjected to enormous harassment at the airport and were detained unreasonably by the Customs Department. Considering that the petitioner was to travel back to the USA, it was directed that the petitioner would appear before the Customs Department along with the release of the jewellery and iPhones back to the petitioner.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Suryanarayana Singh and Advocate Vikas Malik, for the Petitioner/ Taxpayer
Advocates Niraj Kumar, Anushree Narain, and Yamit Jetley, for the Respondent/ Revenue
