Nahid Zakiya Through Spa Mohammad Uzair vs Commissioner Of Customs

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 31.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 03.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 03.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010021412026
+ W.P.(C) 1037/2026
NAHID ZAKIYA THROUGH SPA MOHAMMAD UZAIR
.....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Richa Kumari, Mr. Pawan
and Mr. Nagendra Yadav,
Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SSC
along with Mr. Ashish Bansal
and Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition
is whether the Petitioner, after approaching this Court more than two
and a half years after the detention of one yellow metal chain
appearing to be gold, is entitled to a writ directing its unconditional
return on the assertion that no notice under Section 124 of the
Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟] was issued
within the period contemplated under Section 110(2) thereof.
2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks setting aside
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 1 of 14

of the action of the Customs authorities in detaining one yellow metal
chain weighing 58 grams vide Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/28-
06-2023/002115 dated 28.06.2023 and a consequential direction for
return of the aforesaid article. The Petitioner has also prayed for
waiver of warehouse and handling charges.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present
Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
4. The Petitioner arrived at Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi
International Airport, New Delhi, from the United Arab Emirates on
28.06.2023. According to the contemporaneous record placed before
this Court, after the Petitioner had crossed the Green Channel, she was
intercepted by the Customs authorities. During the course of
examination, one yellow metal chain appearing to be gold and
weighing 58 grams was recovered from her possession.
5. The aforesaid article was detained vide Detention Receipt No.
DR/INDEL4/28-06-2023/002115 dated 28.06.2023. The reason
recorded in the Detention Receipt is “ Green Channel Violation ”. The
article has been described therein as “ ONE YELLOW METAL CHAIN
MADE TO BE GOLD ”, weighing 58 grams. Significantly, the value of
the article was recorded as being “ TO BE APPRAISED ”.
6. The Petitioner also tendered a statement on 28.06.2023 under
Section 108 of the Act, wherein then Petitioner stated that she was
intercepted by the Customs Officer after crossing the Green Channel
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 2 of 14

and that, during the course of examination, the aforesaid article was
recovered from her possession. It was further stated that the article
belonged to the Petitioner and that she was aware that Customs duty
was payable on the imported goods. It was also stated that the
Petitioner had intentionally not declared the recovered article.
7. It was further recorded in the said statement that the Petitioner
agreed with the description, quantity and value to be assessed by the
Department and was ready to pay Customs duty along with fine and
penalty, as applicable. The statement also records that the Petitioner
did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing in the matter.
The statement further records that it was tendered as true and correct,
was understood by the Petitioner in the vernacular and was made
without any duress, pressure or threat.
8. It is significant to note that the present Writ Petition is
completely silent regarding the aforesaid contemporaneous statement
recorded under Section 108 of the Act. The Petition, on the contrary,
proceeds substantially on the assertion that the Petitioner was never
afforded an opportunity to place her version before the Customs
authorities and that no opportunity whatsoever was granted to her in
the matter.
9. The Respondent has contested the Petition and, at the outset,
has raised objections with regard to suppression of the material
contemporaneous record as well as delay and laches.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 3 of 14

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
10. Contentions on behalf of the Petitioner
10.1 It was submitted that the article in question constitutes the
Petitioner‟s used personal jewellery and, therefore, is liable to be
treated as a bona fide personal effect. It was further contended that the
Respondent failed to issue a Show Cause Notice within the period
prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act and, consequently, the
detained/seized article is liable to be returned to the Petitioner.
10.2 Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja , Civil Appeal No.3489/2024
and connected matters, decided on 11.09.2025, in support of the
submission that where the statutory requirement with regard to
issuance of notice is not complied with within the prescribed period,
the concerned goods are liable to be returned.
10.3 Further reliance was also placed upon the decision of this Court
in Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors. in support of the contention
that genuine personal jewellery may constitute personal effects and
may not be liable to be treated in the same manner as goods imported
for commercial purposes.
10.4 It was lastly contended that continued retention of the article
without completion of the proceedings violates the Petitioner‟s rights,
including the constitutional protection under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. The Petitioner also seeks waiver of the
warehouse and handling charges allegedly accruing on account of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 4 of 14

continued retention of the article.
11. Contentions on behalf of the Respondent
11.1 Per contra , it was submitted that the present Writ Petition is
liable to be dismissed on account of material non-disclosure, delay
and laches. It was submitted that the Petitioner‟s entire case has been
presented without disclosing her own statement tendered under
Section 108 of the Act on 28.06.2023. According to the Respondent,
the Petitioner therein admitted that she had crossed the Green
Channel, that the article recovered belonged to her, that she was aware
of the liability to Customs duty and that she had intentionally not
declared the article.
11.2 It was submitted that the Petitioner agreed to the description,
quantity and value to be assessed by the Department and expressed
her willingness to pay the applicable duty, fine and penalty. Reliance
was placed upon the portion of the statement wherein the Petitioner
recorded that she did not require a written Show Cause Notice or
personal hearing. It was submitted that there is no contemporaneous
retraction of the aforesaid statement. The allegation that the Petitioner
was merely wearing an old personal chain and that the action of the
Customs authorities was wholly arbitrary is, therefore, disputed.
11.3 It was further submitted that the Petition was instituted after
approximately 938 days. The Petitioner has neither produced any
contemporaneous representation nor any acknowledgment to
substantiate the allegation that she repeatedly approached the
Department and was asked merely to wait.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 5 of 14

11.4 It was submitted that the questions sought to be determined by
the Petitioner, including whether the article was genuinely an old and
used personal effect, its composition and value, and the applicability
of the relevant baggage provisions, involve disputed questions of fact
which cannot appropriately be conclusively adjudicated in the exercise
of writ jurisdiction on the basis of the Petitioner‟s unilateral
assertions.
11.5 It was further submitted that the judgment in Jatin Ahuja
(supra) cannot be applied mechanically without examining the
complete factual and procedural record of the present case. Similarly,
according to the Respondent, the decision in Saba Simran (supra)
turned upon its own factual matrix and does not entitle the Petitioner
to obtain a declaration in writ proceedings that the article in question
was necessarily a bona fide used personal effect.
11.6 It was, however, submitted that the Respondent is ready and
willing to complete the necessary proceedings expeditiously in
accordance with law, subject to the Petitioner‟s cooperation.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.
13. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is discretionary and equitable in nature. A person invoking such
jurisdiction is expected to approach the Court with reasonable
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 6 of 14

promptitude and to place before the Court the complete and material
factual record necessary for an appropriate adjudication of the
controversy.
14. In the present case, the incident occurred on 28.06.2023. The
present Writ Petition was instituted on 21.01.2026, i.e., approximately
938 days thereafter.
15. The Petitioner has sought to explain the delay by asserting that
the cause of action continued on account of the alleged failure of the
Customs authorities to issue the requisite Show Cause Notice and that
she had approached the Department but was asked to wait for further
communication.
16. However, the aforesaid assertion is conspicuously devoid of
particulars. The Petition does not disclose the date or dates on which
the Petitioner allegedly approached the Customs authorities. No name
or designation of any officer has been furnished. More importantly, no
contemporaneous representation, letter, email, acknowledgment or
other documentary material has been placed before this Court in
support of the assertion that the Petitioner was continuously pursuing
the matter with the Department.
17. The Respondent has specifically disputed the aforesaid
allegation and has stated that the Petitioner did not participate in the
process of appraisement and completion of the procedure
contemplated under the contemporaneous record.
18. In these circumstances, a bald assertion that the Petitioner was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 7 of 14

repeatedly approaching the Department cannot, by itself, satisfactorily
explain the prolonged inaction extending over more than two and a
half years.
19. Equally significant is the fact that the Writ Petition does not
disclose the complete contemporaneous record. As already noticed, on
the very date of the incident, i.e., 28.06.2023, the Petitioner tendered a
statement under Section 108 of the Act.
20. In the said statement, the Petitioner admitted, inter alia , that she
had crossed the Green Channel and that the article in question was
recovered thereafter. She also recorded that she was aware of the
Customs liability and had intentionally not declared the recovered
article. The Petitioner further agreed to the description, quantity and
value to be assessed by the Department and expressed her willingness
to pay the applicable duty, fine and penalty.
21. The statement also contains the Petitioner‟s assertion that she
did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. The
statement, as recorded, further declares that it was tendered
voluntarily and without duress, pressure or threat.
22. Significantly, the Petitioner has not pleaded that the aforesaid
statement was retracted contemporaneously. No representation or
complaint has been placed on record to show that the Petitioner, at any
point immediately thereafter, disputed its voluntariness or correctness.
23. This Court is conscious that the legal consequences flowing
from the statutory requirements contained in Sections 110 and 124 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 8 of 14

the Act have to be determined in accordance with the statutory scheme
and cannot be dispensed with merely by making a general observation
with regard to a statement tendered by a passenger.
24. At the same time, the Court cannot decide the present Writ
Petition by ignoring the Petitioner‟s own contemporaneous statement
and proceeding solely on the basis of the subsequent narrative set out
in the writ petition. The complete factual and procedural record has
necessarily to be taken into consideration.
25. The Petitioner‟s principal assertion is that the article was her
“used personal jewellery” and was, therefore, a bona fide personal
effect. However, this assertion itself raises questions which cannot be
conclusively answered merely on the basis of the Petitioner‟s
description of the article.
26. The contemporaneous Detention Receipt describes the article as
one yellow metal chain appearing to be gold, weighing 58 grams. The
value of the article was specifically recorded as being “ to be
appraised ”. Thus, the contemporaneous record itself demonstrates that
the nature and value of the article were yet to be finally determined
through the appropriate process.
27. The Respondent disputes the Petitioner‟s claim that the article
has been conclusively established to be an old and used personal
effect. The Respondent has also raised questions regarding the
Petitioner‟s eligibility and compliance with the applicable baggage
and Customs requirements.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 9 of 14

28. Whether the article was genuinely an old personal effect,
whether it was liable to be treated in a particular manner under the
applicable baggage regime, its composition, purity and value, and the
consequences flowing from the Petitioner‟s conduct at the time of
arrival are all matters requiring examination on the basis of the
relevant record.
29. It is well settled that this Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not ordinarily
undertake a detailed adjudication of seriously disputed questions of
fact, particularly where the statutory framework provides for
examination and determination of such issues by the competent
authorities.
30. The Petitioner seeks a positive declaration that the article was
her bona fide used personal jewellery and, on that basis, an
unconditional direction for its return. Such a declaration cannot be
granted merely on the basis of a unilateral assertion, particularly when
the Respondent disputes the factual foundation of that assertion and
the contemporaneous record itself shows that appraisement was yet to
be completed.
31. This Court may now deal with the reliance placed by the
Petitioner upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jatin Ahuja
(supra) . There can be no dispute with the proposition that the statutory
safeguards contained in the Act are required to be complied with and
that the consequences flowing from non-compliance with the
requirements of Section 110(2) have to be determined in accordance
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 10 of 14

with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
32. However, a precedent has to be applied having regard to the
factual and statutory context of the case before the Court. The present
matter cannot be decided by accepting only the Petitioner‟s assertion
that no procedure whatsoever was undertaken while completely
ignoring the material contemporaneous record.
33. The present case involves a Detention Receipt recording a
Green Channel violation and a contemporaneous statement tendered
by the Petitioner under Section 108 of the Act. In that statement, the
Petitioner made material admissions with regard to the circumstances
in which the article was recovered, her failure to declare it and her
willingness to subject the article to the assessment contemplated by
the Department.
34. The statement also contains the Petitioner‟s assertion that she
did not require a written Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. The
Respondent has further pleaded its case with reference to the proviso
to Section 124 of the Act and the procedure allegedly adopted
contemporaneously.
35. This Court does not consider it necessary, in the facts of the
present case, to return any final or abstract finding on the larger
question as to the precise legal effect of every part of the aforesaid
statement for all purposes under Sections 110 and 124 of the Act.
Suffice it to observe that the Petitioner‟s entitlement to an
unconditional writ of release cannot be determined by suppressing or
omitting this material contemporaneous record and by inviting the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 11 of 14

Court to proceed only upon the subsequent version set out in the Writ
Petition.
36. The decision in Jatin Ahuja (supra) , therefore, does not assist
the Petitioner in obtaining, as a matter of course, the unconditional
relief sought in the present proceedings without examination of the
complete factual and procedural record.
37. Similarly, reliance upon the decision of this Court in Saba
Simran (supra) does not advance the Petitioner‟s case to the extent
contended. Whether an article constitutes genuine personal jewellery
or a bona fide used personal effect necessarily depends upon the facts
and circumstances of the particular case.
38. In the present case, apart from the dispute raised by the
Respondent with regard to the factual nature and status of the article,
the contemporaneous record also contains the Petitioner‟s admission
regarding crossing the Green Channel and intentionally not declaring
the article. Thus, without the relevant factual issues being examined in
accordance with law, this Court cannot grant a conclusive declaration
in favour of the Petitioner that the article was necessarily entitled to
unconditional duty-free clearance as a bona fide personal effect.
39. The Petitioner‟s reliance upon Article 300A of the Constitution
of India is also of no assistance at this stage. The rights of a person in
respect of property are undoubtedly protected in accordance with law.
Equally, where the competent statutory authorities have initiated
action under the Customs law, the Court cannot, in the absence of a
clear and undisputed factual foundation, direct unconditional release
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 12 of 14

merely by bypassing the statutory process necessary for determining
the relevant issues.
40. At this stage, the prayer for waiver of warehouse and handling
charges cannot be adjudicated. Hence, this issue is left open for
decision by the adjudicating authority.
41. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for
exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for directing
unconditional return of the article or for setting aside the detention
action in the manner prayed for.
42. The Petition suffers from an unexplained and substantial delay.
Further, the complete contemporaneous record, particularly the
Petitioner‟s statement under Section 108 of the Act, was not disclosed
in the Writ Petition. The Petition also raises disputed questions of fact
which cannot appropriately be conclusively adjudicated in these
proceedings on the basis of the Petitioner‟s unilateral assertions.
43. At the same time, the Respondent has stated before this Court
that it is ready and willing to complete the requisite proceedings
expeditiously in accordance with law.
44. Accordingly, while declining the relief of unconditional release
sought by the Petitioner, it is considered appropriate to leave the
parties to the statutory process.
45. The competent authority shall, therefore, take necessary steps
for completion of the appraisement and such further proceedings as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 13 of 14

may be required in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably
within a period of three months from the date on which the Petitioner,
through her authorised representative or otherwise in accordance with
law, extends the requisite cooperation and makes herself available for
completion of the proceedings.
46. It is clarified that the Petitioner shall cooperate with the
competent authority and shall furnish such documents or information
as may lawfully be required for completion of the proceedings.
CONCLUSION
47. The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
48. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the ultimate merits of the question whether the article is liable to
confiscation, whether any duty, fine or penalty is payable, or on any
other issue which falls for determination by the competent authority in
accordance with the Act.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
s.godara/pal


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
13:47:58
W.P.(C) 1037/2026 Page 14 of 14