$~57 & 64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18579/2025 MR CHANDRA OBULAREDDY BHEEMI REDDY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Harsh Trikha, Adv versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, IGI AIRPORT & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Appearance not given.

~64 + W.P.(C) 18609/2025 MR VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY KUPPALA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Harsh Trikha, Adv.

versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, IGI AIRPORT & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

% 08.12.2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 77246/2025 in W.P.(C) 18579/2025 (for exemption) CM APPL. 77355/2025 in W.P.(C) 18609/2025 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 18579/2025 W.P.(C) 18609/2025

3. The present two petitions have been filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of the Petitioners’ gold items which were detained by the Customs Department.

4. The details of the detained gold items are as under:

S. No. Petition No. Details of gold items as per Order-in-Original

1. W.P.(C) 18579/2025 (i) One elongated gold piece having weighing 50 grams, (ii) One elongated gold piece weighing 15 grams, (iii) One elongated gold piece weighing 15 grams.

2. W.P.(C) 18609/2025 (i) One elongated piece weighing 15 grams, (ii) One elongated piece of gold weighing 15 grams, (iii) One elongated piece of gold weighing 15 grams, (iv) One elongated piece of gold weighing 15 grams.

(hereinafter, ‘gold items’)

5. A brief background of the Petitioners’ case is that there were four friends including the Petitioners, who were stated to be travelling from Nairobi to India on 30^th July, 2024. The Petitioners are Indian passport holders. Upon their arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi, they were intercepted by the concerned officials of the Customs Department and gold items were stated to be detained by the Customs Department vide detention receipts dated 30th July, 2024.

6. The grievance of the Petitioners is that, no Show cause notice was issued to the Petitioners and no personal hearing was granted, and Orders-in- Original dated 25th September, 2024 and 3^rd October, 2024 and 25th September, 2024 were passed by the Adjudicating Authority (hereinafter, ‘OIOs’), directing absolute confiscation of the detained gold items.

7. Thereafter, the Petitioners preferred appeals against the OIOs.

However, the appeals have not been heard by the Appellate Authority.

8. The submission on behalf of ld. Counsel for the Petitioners is that as per Section 128A(4A) of the Customs Act, 1962, an appeal is to be decided within a period of six months. The said section is extracted here, for ready reference:

“128A. Procedure in appeal.—

xxx [(4A) The Commissioner (Appeals) shall, where it is possible to do so, hear and decide every appeal within a period of six months from the date on which it is filed.].”

9. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners also relies upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja in Civil Appeal No.3489/2024 Customs, to argue that if no SCN is issued to the Petitioner within the time prescribed under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods are liable to be released.

10. Additionally, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners has also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC: 751-DB

11. Further, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners also relies upon the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) 16119/2025 titled Ms. Sunita Shah v. Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport to argue that the detained goods should be released. 12. However, ld. Counsel for the Customs Department has sought time to seek instructions in the matter. It is further submitted that the Customs Department is willing to afford an expeditious hearing of the appeal.

13. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties. The deci