The Tick-Tock of Justice: Delhi High Court Orders Release of Seized Rolex Over Customs Delay

In a case that underscores the importance of strict statutory timelines, the High Court of Delhi has ordered the Customs Department to release a seized Rolex watch belonging to an Indian national and permanent U.S. resident, Monish Kansal. The ruling serves as a stern reminder that the power to seize assets is not absolute and must operate within the rigid boundaries of the law.

A Journey Interrupted

The dispute began on February 22, 2025, when Monish Kansal arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi. Upon his arrival, the Customs Department detained his personal Rolex watch. Despite the passage of months, the authorities failed to issue a Show Cause Notice (SCN), a prerequisite for ongoing sequestration of seized goods.

Mr. Kansal maintained that the item was his personal effect, providing photographic evidence to prove his long-standing ownership. When the matter reached the High Court, the bench itself examined the watch, noting clear signs of wear, such as scratches on the dial and strap, confirming its status as a used personal item.

The Clash of Compliance

The Petitioner argued that the detention was illegal, especially in the absence of a formal SCN. The Customs Department, represented by Mr. Aditya Singla, remained tasked with justifying the continued holding of the watch. However, the legal hurdle was insurmountable: the statutory window for issuing a notice had long since slammed shut.

A Lesson in Legal Precedent

The High Court’s reasoning was anchored in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Customs Act, 1962 . Referencing Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani , the Court reaffirmed that the "newness" of a personal item is irrelevant when it is intended for personal use and not for illicit commercial trade.

More importantly, the Court held that the precedent of Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja was decisive. In Jatin Ahuja , the Supreme Court clarified that the power of the Revenue to extend detention periods is strictly defined by the first proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act. Because the Customs Department failed to issue an SCN within the maximum one-year limit (including extensions), the continued detention became legally untenable.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the Court's stance on the rights of passengers and the obligations of the Revenue:

• On Statutory Limits: "If no SCN is issued within the time prescribed under Section 110 of the Act, the seized goods are liable to be released."
• On the Nature of Personal Effects: "It is quite reasonable that a traveller may make purchases of his personal effects before embarking on a tour to India. It could be of any personal effect including jewellery. Therefore, its newness is of no consequence."
• On Interim Measures vs. Seizure: "The existence of [Section 110A] power does not, in any way, impede or limit the operation of the mandatory provision of Section 110(2)."

The Final Verdict: Time’s Up

Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar directed the Customs Department to release the Rolex watch directly to the petitioner for re-export. Notably, the Court stipulated that no import duty or warehousing charges were to be collected, ensuring the petitioner faced no financial penalty for the department's failure to adhere to the statutory timeline.

The petitioner is scheduled to appear before the customs authorities on December 22, 2025, to finalize the release. This ruling marks a victory for procedural fairness, reminding authorities that even the gears of justice—and the time they take to move—must be regulated by the law.