The court upheld the discretionary power under Section 125 of the Customs Act to permit redemption of confiscated goods on payment of fine and duty, even where the passenger was ineligible for concessional duty, as long as the discretion is exercised judiciously and not perversely.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi, challenging Order No. 67/25-Cus dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Revisionary Authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. By the said order, the Department’s revision against the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.05.2023 was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that Ms. Shabnam Parveen/respondent no. 1, is an Indian national, who arrived at IGI Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi from Bangkok by on 09.05.2022. After crossing the Green Channel, she was intercepted by Customs officers and diverted for detailed examination.

3. A detention receipt bearing DR No. DR/INDEL4/10-05-2022/000104 was issued on 10.05.2022. The detained articles were recorded as “two yellow metal cut piece bars weighing 300 grams”. The reason recorded for detention/seizure was ‘Green Channel violation’.

4. The detention receipt recorded the total value as ₹14,07,210 and the goods were described as two yellow metal cut piece bars appearing to be gold, with total weight of 300 grams, and were marked for appraisal.

5. On 10.05.2022, the statement of respondent no. 1 was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, (1 Hereinafter “Customs Act”). She stated that the recovered goods

did not belong to her and that an unknown person had handed the items to her in Bangkok for delivery in Delhi, in consideration for ₹15,000. She stated that she did not have bills for the goods, that she was aware customs duty was leviable, and that she intentionally did not declare the goods. Furthermore, she agreed to the description, quantity and value as assessed by the Department and she did not require issuance of a Show Cause Notice, (2 Hereinafter “SCN”) and requested that the case be decided on merits.

6. Furthermore, she agreed to the description, quantity and value as assessed by the Department and she did not require issuance of an SCN and requested that the case be decided on merits.

7. An authority letter/special power of attorney dated 18.06.2022 is on record, by which respondent no. 1 authorised an advocate to represent her before Customs in relation to the detention receipt and to file documents for, release or re-export of the goods.

8. An application dated 22.06.2022 was received by the competent Customs Authority on 24.06.2022. In the said application, it was stated that the detained articles comprised two gold pieces of 24 carat purity, weighing 300 grams, and valued at ₹14,07,210 as on 10.05.2022. It was further stated that, through her authorised advocate, respondent no. 1 waived issuance of a written SCN as well as the right to personal hearing, and requested that the matter be decided on merits.

9. At the same time, the authorised advocate for respondent no. 1 also filed a retraction application on 22.06.2022, which was received by the petitioner on 24.06.2022. It was mentioned in the retraction application that the respondent no. 1 along with her husband were apprehended by the

Customs officer and were badly beaten and were threatened with dire consequences if they did not sign some blank papers. In this manner, those blank papers got signed and respondent no. 1 did not even got to know what was mentioned in those papers and it was o