Gautam Jain vs Union Of India & Ors

$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

th
Date of decision:12 March, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 15864/2022

SH. GAUTAM JAIN
HOUSE NO.27ª, TAGORE NAGAR,
CIVIL LINES, LUDHIANA,
PUNJAB.
..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. D S Chadha& Ms.Prabjyoti
K Chadha, Advocates.
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
PARLIAMENT STREET,
NORTH BLOCK,
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,
NEW DELHI-110001.
..... RESPONDENT NO.1

2. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
(REVISION AUTHORITY)
TH
6 FLOOR, HUDCO VISHALA BUILDING
14 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110066.
...... RESPONDENT NO.2

3. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
TERMINAL-3
INDRA GANDHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NEW DELHI-110037.
.... RESPONDENT NO.3
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ALKA
BOBAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:51:58
W.P.(C) 15864/2022 Page 1 of 9

Through: Mr. Vedansh Aanand, Senior
Panel Counsel with Mr. Kush
Garg, Advocate for Union of
India.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior
Standing Counsel withMr.Iqbal
Singh Bedi, Ms. Suhani
Mathur&Mr.Jatin Kumar Gaur,
Advocates for Customs.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
1. Heard the respective counsels at length.
th
2. The petitioner has questioned the order dated 30 March, 2022
passed by the Government of India in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
th th
confirming the order dated 13 February, 2019 and 5 August, 2020.
th
3. Vide the order impugned dated 13 February, 2019, the
respondents have passed the following order against the petitioner,
which reads thus:
“ 30. In view of the foregoing, I pass the following order:
(i) I deny the free allowance of Sh. Salil Puri on accounts
of various omission
and commission done by him as discussed supra.
(ii) I order confiscation of seized gold total weighing 999
gms valued at Rs. 26,12,855/- (Rupees Twenty six lakh
twelve thousand eight hundred fifty five Only), seized
from possession of Noticee 1 i.e. Sh. Salil Puri under
Section 111 (d), 111(i), 111(j),111(l), 111(m) and 111(o)
of the Customs Act, 1962.
(iii) I allow the re-export of the above said impugned
goods on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 5,30,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ALKA
BOBAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:51:58
W.P.(C) 15864/2022 Page 2 of 9

(Rupees Five lakh thirty thousand only) under Section
125 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with the payment of
penalty and charges as applicable. The redemption 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 Noticee shall not
dispute the identity and valuation of the goods. The offer
of re-export shall cease after three months of the receipt
of this order.
(iv) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 5,30,000/- (Rupees Five
lakh thirty thousand only) on the Noticee 1 i.e. Sh. Salil
Puri upon the Noticee under Section 112 and 114AA of
the Customs Act, 1962.
(v) I demand for duty on gold weighing 2920 gms (200
gms + 500 gms) valued at Rs.81,76,000/- (Rupees Eighty
one lakh seventy six thousand only), under Section 28 of
Customs Act, 1962.
(vi) I order for charging and recovery of interest at
applicable rates on the delayed payment of duty on gold
weighing 2920 gms valued at Rs.81,76,000/- (Rupees
Eighty one lakh seventy six thousand only) under Section
28AA of the Customs Act, 1962, which have already been
cleared illegally.
(vii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 16,00,000/-(Rupees
Sixteen lakh only) on the Noticee 2 i.e . Sh. Gautam Jain
under Section 112(a) & 112(b), 114, 114A, 114AA and
117 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 13 of
Foreign Exchange Management (Export & Import of
Currency) Regulations, 1999.
(vii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five lakh only) on the Noticee 3 i.e. Sh. Raman Kumar
under Section 112(a) & 112(b), 114, 114A; 114AA and
117 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 13 of
Foreign Exchange Management (Export & Import of
Currency) Regulations, 1999.”

th
4. The Order in Original dated 13 February, 2019 was confirmed
th
by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 05
August, 2020 and also by the Government in revisional jurisdiction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ALKA
BOBAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:51:58
W.P.(C) 15864/2022 Page 3 of 9

5. The facts which are necessary for deciding the present petition
are as under:
i. The petitioner claims to be a jeweller and running a
jewellery shop in the name and style as M/s Jain
Jewellers operating from Rani Jhansi Road, Ludhiana.
ii. The passenger, Salil Puri, who was a resident of
Ludhiana holding an Indian passport was crossing the
Green Channel along with his wife Mrs. Pratibha Puri
th
on 24 December, 2017.
iii. Upon the baggage being scanned, from the said
passenger, the gold to the extent of 1 kg , i.e., chain
shape weighing 668 grams and one bar form weighing
331 grams came to be recovered and a detention
receipt came to be issued.
iv. The said passenger, thereafter, was subjected to
inquiry and in the statement recorded under Section
108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to
as “ Customs Act ”), wherein it was disclosed that he
was acting as a carrier for the petitioner.
v. The same has resulted into issuance of a show cause
th
notice to the petitioner on 18 June, 2018. It is upon
the cause shown by the petitioner, the Order in
Original came to be passed, operative part of which is
reproduced hereinabove.
vi. The said Order in Original came to be confirmed by
the Commissioner (Appeals), so also by the revisional
authority.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ALKA
BOBAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:51:58
W.P.(C) 15864/2022 Page 4 of 9

6. Amongst other, the contention raised by the counsel for the
petitioner, while questioning the legality and sustainability of the orders
impugned, are that the material to connect the petitioner for the purpose
of passing the impugned order cannot be said to be sufficient enough.
7. Drawing support from the provisions of Section 112(a) and (b)
of the Customs Act, he would urge that the said provisions are not
applicable to the facts of case in hand. Apart from above, his
contentions are that the penalty is imposed at an exorbitant rate. So as
to substantiate the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel has drawn
support from the very decision of the respondent, in the matter of not
only permitting redemption in favour of the passenger, wherein he was
permitted to re-export the gold which was smuggled by him, but also
the meagre penalty imposed for the very same act.
8. The learned counsel, in such an eventuality, has urged that the
order passed by the respondent to the extent of imposing penalty is also
not sustainable.
9. The counsel for the respondent has opposed the aforesaid
contentions and submits that the order impugned is just and proper as
the penalty imposed is in tune with the statutory provisions. There is
enough material available on record which was tested and considered
in the light of statutory mandate provided under Section 108 of the
Customs Act. That being so, the dismissal of this petition is sought.
10. Having appreciated the aforesaid submissions, it is apparent that
the passenger’s statement was recorded under Section 108 of the
Customs Act and there was consistency in all three statements of the
said passenger, that he has smuggled the gold in question at the behest
of the present petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ALKA
BOBAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:51:58
W.P.(C) 15864/2022 Page 5 of 9

11. During the investigation with the noticee no.1, it was discovered
th rd th
that on 5 October, 2017, 23 November, 2017 and 14 December,
2017, said passenger has carried 1,000, 1,000 and 920 gms of Gold
respectively worth Rs.81,76,000/-. The Show Cause Notice contains
the quantity of smuggled goods as 3919 gms, which includes the gold
that was seized in his recent visit. The valuation of the total gold
reflected in the Show Cause Notice was Rs.1,07,88,855/- only.
12. The statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act
th th th
on 24 December, 2017, 25 December, 2017 and 11 April, 2018,
were found to be consistent. In the said statements, it is specifically
stated that upon directions of Mr. Raman Kumar, a money exchanger,
the currency was delivered to the petitioner and the said currency used
to be handed over to the noticee no.1 in Dubai by representative of the
present petitioner.
13. Apart from above, other noticee viz. Mr. Raman Kumar in his
statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act has also implicated the
present petitioner. In his statement, he has specifically stated that the
noticee no.1, Mr. Salil Puri, offered deal to exchange Indian Rupee to
US Dollars and the US Dollars were directed to be delivered to the
petitioner by the noticee no.1, Mr. Salil Puri, and to receive the payment
in Indian currency from the present petitioner at the same time. The said
exchange and payments at the behest of the petitioner were carried out
four times. In the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108
of the Customs Act, it is specifically stated by him that he knows the
noticee no.1 for last seven years.
14. The forensic analysis of the mobile phone of Mr. Salil Puri,
th
detained vide Panchnama dated 24 December, 2017, establishes that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ALKA
BOBAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:51:58
W.P.(C) 15864/2022 Page 6 of 9

Mr. Salil Puri was in touch with the petitioner for purchasing and
bringing gold into India, including for the purchase and receipt of
dollars from Mr. Raman Kumar. The aforesaid facts establish a
relationship between the petitioner and noticee No. 1, so also with the
money exchanger, Mr. Raman Kumar.
15. Before the Show Cause Notice was issued, summons were issued
to the petitioner, however, petitioner appears to have not cooperated.
16. Apart from above, it appears that vide order in original, free
allowance to Mr. Salil Puri was denied and an order of confiscation
under Section 124 of the Customs Act came to be passed. Post
redemption fine of Rs.5,30,000/-, re-export of the smuggled good with
penalty was permitted. In addition to above, penalty was also imposed
under Section 112A, 114 AA of the Customs Act on Mr. Salil Puri with
the demand of duty on 2920 gms of gold at Rs.81,76,000/- and also the
recovery of interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act.
17. The petitioner was saddled penalty of Rs.16 lakhs under Section
112(a) & 112(b), 114, 114A, 114AA and 117 of Customs Act, 1962
read with Section 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export &
Import of Currency) Regulations, 1999.
18. The entire material on record demonstrates that the petitioner in
relation to the goods in question was found to be involved in the act
which renders the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111.
19. Apart from the above, the intention of the petitioner was to
purchase the goods and/or deal with them in any other manner, knowing
that they were liable for confiscation.
20. The petitioner has attempted to export the goods improperly
which has rightly prompted not only the levy of penalty under Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ALKA
BOBAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:51:58
W.P.(C) 15864/2022 Page 7 of 9

114A, but also under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
21. In the aforesaid background, it can be noticed that not only the
statement of the said passenger under Section 108 of the Customs Act
incriminates the petitioner, but also there is other collateral material
connecting the petitioner to the said act of gold smuggling.
22. It is settled position of law that statement recorded under Section
108 of the Customs Act can be considered for the purpose of
proceedings against the parties like the present petitioner qua
implicated in a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs
Act. An authoritative support can be drawn from the judgment of Apex
Court in the matter of Naresh J. Sukhawani Vs. Union of India: 1995
Supp (4) SCC 663 and the relevant paragraph reads thus:
“4. It must be remembered that the statement made
before the Customs officials is not a statement
recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973. Therefore, it is a material
piece of evidence collected by Customs officials under
Section 108 of the Customs Act. That material
incriminates the petitioner inculpating him in the
contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act.
The material can certainly be used to connect the
petitioner in the contravention inasmuch as Mr.
Dudani's statement clearly inculpates not only
himself but also the petitioner. It can, therefore, be
used as substantive evidence connecting the
petitioner with the contravention by exporting foreign
currency out of India. Therefore, we do not think that
there is any illegality in the order of confiscation of
foreign currency and imposition of penalty. There is
no ground warranting reduction of fine.”

23. As such, it cannot be said that the order impugned is without any
legal basis.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ALKA
BOBAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:51:58
W.P.(C) 15864/2022 Page 8 of 9

24. Merely because the said passenger was permitted to redeem and
re-export the gold, that by itself, will not give leverage to the petitioner
to claim parity with the other accused. It is settled position of law that
Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for seeking the relief
in such an eventuality, claiming equal treatment to the person who have
flouted the provision of law.
25. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, no case for causing
interference in extraordinary jurisdiction is made out. The petition, as
such, stands dismissed.
26. Copy of the Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
(JUDGE)




AJAY DIGPAUL
(JUDGE)
MARCH 12, 2026/ ab/sk
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ALKA
BOBAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:51:58
W.P.(C) 15864/2022 Page 9 of 9