$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 8^th October, 2025 + W.P.(C) 14673/2025 BAKHODIRJON SULTONOV .....Petitioner Through: Mohammed Ather & Md. Mobeen Akhter, Advs. (M: 7011359907)

versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Avijit Dikshit, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the continued detention of the following goods of the Petitioner (hereinafter “seized goods”):

(i) 9 gold chains having purity 600, weighing 175 grams; (ii) 2 gold bangles having purity 588, weighing 21 grams;

(iii) 2 gold pendants having purity 591, weighing 7 grams;

and (iv) 5 gold rings having purity 583, weighing 25 grams.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a national of Uzbekistan and had travelled from Uzbekistan to New Delhi on 16th December, 2023. Upon his arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, the Petitioner was intercepted by the Customs Department and the seized goods were detained vide detention receipt dated 16th December, 2023.

It is stated that the seized goods were appraised by the Customs Department on 19th December, 2023 on which date the Petitioner had submitted a detailed representation claiming the seized goods as personal jewellery. It is also stated that the Petitioner did not seek waiver of show cause notice and no oral show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. However, it is alleged that the Customs Department obtained a waiver of the show cause notice in a pre-

printed form.

4. ThePetitionerisaggrievedbythefactthatnoshowcausenoticehasbeen issuedtothe Petitioner tilldate andalsonopersonalhearinghasbeenprovided.

In view of the same, the Petitioner has preferred the present petition.

5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 22nd September, 2025, the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner had submitted that no show cause notice has been issued till date and thus, prayed for release of the seized goods for re-export.

6. Further, Mr. Avijit Dikshit ld. Counsel appearing for the Customs Departmenthadsubmittedthathewouldliketoverifycertainfactsandwhether the show cause notice was issued or not.

7. Today, Mr. Dikshit, ld. Counsel submits that an Order-in-Original has beenpassedon26thFebruary,2024bytheAssistantCommissionerofCustoms in this matter. The ld. Counsel has handed across a copy of the said order and the same is taken on record.

8. It is submitted that the same would show that in fact a copy of the said orderhadbeenreceivedbyoneMs.AnishaSharma,anadvocate(D/862/2022), acting as the authorised representative of the Petitioner. The Order-in-Original also records that a waiver was signed by the Petitioner for issuance of the show cause notice.

9. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Ms. Anisha Sharma did not inform the Petitioner of the passing of the said order.

10. The Court has heard the parties and perused the documents placed on record, including the Order-in-Original dated 26th February, 26th February, 2024 - the operative portion of which reads as under:

“10. In view of the foregoing, I pass the following order:

ORDER

1) I deny the 'Free Allowance' if any admissible to the passenger,Mr.Bakhodirjon Sultonov for the various acts of commission and omission;

ii) I declare the passenger, Mr. Bakhodirjon Sultonov is "an ineligible Passenger" for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended); iii) I order absolute confiscation of "Nine gold chains having purity 600 weighing 175 grams valued at Rs.6,49,562/-, two gold bangles having purity 588 weighing 21 grams valued at Rs.76,388/-, Two gold pendants having purity 591 weighing 7 grams valued at Rs. 25,593/-, Five gold rings having purity 583 weighing 25 grams collectively valued at Rs. 90,165/- all je