Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia seeking -

(i) implementation of the Order-in-Original dated 29th December 2023, as confirmed by Order-in-Appeal dated 26th May 2025, and

(ii) directions to release her personal jewellery without imposing any warehouse charges.

3. The brief background of this matter is that the Petitioner had travelled from Saudi Arabia to Delhi on 18th November, 2023 after visiting her husband who is stated to be residing and working in Mecca. She was wearing four gold bangles weighing 250 grams which were detained by the Customs Authorities. Pursuant to the said detention, the Order-in-Original has been passed on 29th December, 2023 by which redemption was allowed in the following terms:

“ORDER

i) I deny the 'Free Allowance' if any, admissible to the Pax Mrs. Ashiya for not declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted her and recovered the detained goods from him.

ii) I declare the passenger, Mrs. Ashiya, is 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 confiscation of "Four gold Bangles having purity 998 weighing 250 grams valued at Rs. 14,58,778/-"recovered from the Pax Mrs. Ashiya and detained vide DR No. DR/INDEL4/19.11.2023/003120 dated 19.11.2023 under section 111(d), 111(j) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962;

iv) I give an option to redeem, the goods confiscated, above, on payment of fine of Rs.2,15,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand only) along-with applicable rate of Customs duty on tariff valuation as on the date of detention of goods. I allow release of the detained goods within 120 days of issue of this order under Section 125(3) of Customs Act, 1962. The redemption is to be allowed after the completion of legal formalities in this regard and also fulfillment of any regulatory clearances/approvals required. The offer of redemption, if accepted, shall be subject to condition that the Pax shall not dispute the identity and valuation of the detained goods. The offer of redemption shall cease after 'One Hundred Twenty Days' from date of the receipt of this order;

v) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,45,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand Only) on the Pax Mrs. Ashiya under section 112 (a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.”

4. The said order was challenged in appeal by the Customs Department (hereinafter ‘Department’) and the Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal vide Order-in-Appeal dated 26th May 2025 in the following terms:

“6.0 In light of the discussions and findings above, I reject the appeal of the appellant i.e. department and uphold the OIO No 1090/003120/19.11.2023/WH/2023-24 dated 01-01-2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.”

5. The Petitioner vide the present petition primarily seeks enforcement of the said two orders. Mr. Aditya Singla, ld. Counsel for the Respondent - Department, under instructions, submits that the Department may be filing review against the said orders. He further submits that the jewellery was seized primarily on the ground that it possessed a purity of 24 carats. Elaborating upon it, he further submits that normal gold jewellery does not have such levels of purity, owing to the increased malleability of the metal (gold) at such levels of purity, rendering it unsuitable for use as jewellery for day-to-day wear.

6. The Court has heard the parties. Considering that no review has been filed till date and the Order-in-Appeal has been issued way back on 26th May, 2025, the mere prospect of filing a review cannot be a ground to hold back implementation of these orders. Moreover, a perusal of paragraph 5.10 of the Appellate Authorit