IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P.No.32216 OF 2024

12.03.2026 Between:

Smt. Fariya Khaleed …Petitioner A N D The Principal Commissioner, Hyderabad Customs Commissionerate, Room No.808, 7^th Floor, GST Bhavan, L.B.Statium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and 2 others …Respondents ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Mirza Mahmood Ali Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CBIC for respondent No.1 and Mr.M.P.Kashyap, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CBIC for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. The present is a writ petition which has been filed being aggrieved by the seizure of certain gold ornaments which the petitioner is said to have brought to India from Dubai on

19.10.2024.

3. The contention of the department is that the petitioner brought about 4 flat bars, 4 jumkis, 3 lockets and 1 ring, weighing 388.600 gms, then valued at 31,16,961/-. The department had issued summons to the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 20.10.2024, after which she had immediately rushed to this High Court and this Court vide order dated 20.11.2024 had ordered maintenance of status quo in relation to bullion/gold jewellery recovered from the petitioner and the order of status quo still holds good and the gold is retained by the department till date. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was working at Dubai for the past two decades and he purchased the said gold from his hard earned money for family purpose and that the petitioner happened to visit her husband and while returning, she carried the above said gold ornaments to India. He submits that the petitioner was not aware of the rules and procedures so far as the Customs Act is concerned and out of ignorance, she had carried them without disclosing to the authorities.

5. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner himself submits that since she had been served with summons and since the interim order is operating in her favour insofar as the direction to the department to maintain status quo in relation to bullion/gold jewellery recovered from the petitioner, let the writ petition itself be disposed of permitting the petitioner to appear before the authorities and to submit her reply to the summons dated 20.10.2024 which the authorities may take a decision in accordance with law. She further submits that she shall be permitted to move an appropriate application for the provisional release of the said gold ornaments under Section 110A of the Customs Act, which too the authorities may consider in accordance with law.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the department does not have any objection, provided the petitioner cooperates with the investigation and authorities shall take a decision strictly in accordance with law.

7. Given the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition, at this juncture, can be disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities in response to the summons dated 20.10.2024 within a period of two weeks from today and the petitioner would also be at liberty to move an appropriate application which is permissible under the Customs Act and thereafter the respondent authorities shall take an appropriate decision on its own merits strictly in accordance with law. Meanwhile, it is ordered that the interim protection granted by the High Court on 20.11.2024 be maintained till the final decision is taken by the competent authority under the Customs Act.

8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________

P.SAM KOSHY, J

_________________________________

SUDDALA CHALA