$~106 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 16^th July, 2025 + W.P.(C) 10045/2025 RAZIA BEGUM .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Richa Kumari, Advocate.

versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, SSC with Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Drishti Rawal and Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Advocates. CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 ofthe ConstitutionofIndia,interalia,seekingreleaseofthe twogoldbangles weighing 117 grams (hereinafter, ‘detained jewellery’), seized by the Customs Department vide Detention Receipt dated 23^rd March, 2024.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that she was travelling from Saudi Arabia to India on 23rd March, 2023 after completing her pilgrimage/Umrah at Mecca. Upon her arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, the jewellery which she was wearing, were seized by the Customs Department. Thereafter, the detained jewellery was apprised in the presence Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA W.P.(C)10045/2025 Page1of13 of the Petitioner.

4. ItisthecaseofthePetitionerthatnoshowcausenoticehadbeenissued with respect to the detained jewellery and no opportunity for personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner.

5. Thereafter, an Order in Original dated 06^th November, 2024 was passed, directing absolute confiscation of the detained jewellery of the Petitioner in the following terms:

“ ORDER i) I deny ‘Free Allowance’ if any, admissible to the PaxMs.RaziaBegumfornotdeclaringthedetainedgoods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted her and recovered the goods from her.

ii) I declare the passenger Ms Razia Begum as an “ineligible Passenger” for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 (as amended)

read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended).

(iii) I order absolute confiscation of Two Gold bangles having average purity 995 with gross and net weight 117 grams having Assessable value Rs.7,34,6431- recovered from the Pax Ms Razia Begum and detained vide DR No. DR/INDEL4/23.03.2024/004061 dated 23.03.2024 under section 111(d), 111(i), 111(j) and 111(m) of Customs Act,1962;

iii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 /- (Rupees One Lac Only) on the Pax Ms Razia Begum under section

112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act,1962.”

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the detained jewellery is the personal effects of the Petitioner and the same could not have been seized or detained by the Customs Department and thus, seeks for release of the detained jewellery of the Petitioner.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA W.P.(C)10045/2025 Page2of13

7. The Court has heard the parties and has considered the matter. The Petitioner was on a religious pilgrimage to Mecca and was on her way back when the detained jewellery was seized. It is normal practice and part of the culture, at least in our country, that women wear basic jewellery such as bangles as part of their personal effects. The same could not have been detained by the Customs Department, unless any other special circumstances exist for such detention.

8. It is noted that no show cause notice has been issued in this case as the Customs Department is relying on the standard pre-printed waiver that was obtained from the Petitioner. The validity of such pre-printed waiver of SCN and personal hearing has been considered by this Court in various matters, includinginAmitKumarv.TheCommissionerofCustoms,2025:DHC:751- DB and Mr Makhinder Chopra vs Commissioner of Customs New Delhi, 2025:DHC:1162-DB.The operative portion of the judgement in Amit Kumar (supra) is as under:

“16. A perusal of Section 124 of the Act along with the alleged waiver which is relied upon would show that the oral SCN cannot be deemed to have been served in this manner as is being alleged by the Departmen