Case Details: Sayara vs. Commissioner of Customs (2026) 38 Centax 255 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
- Dr Ashutosh & Ms Fatima, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Shri Piyush Beriwal, Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI Airport) from abroad, where customs authorities seized a gold ring from the petitioner’s possession. In adjudication proceedings, the adjudicating authority held that the seized ring was personal jewellery of Indian origin and not liable to confiscation, and directed its release without duty, fine, or penalty. The petitioner submitted that the department had accepted the adjudication order through email communication but had failed to release the ring and continued to levy warehousing charges. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the adjudicating authority had categorically concluded that the seized gold ring was personal jewellery of Indian origin and not liable to confiscation. It was observed that detention of such personal effects, once held not liable to confiscation, was misplaced and unjustified. The Court noted that, having accepted the adjudication order, the department was bound to give effect to it and could not withhold release or impose warehousing charges. Accordingly, the Court directed the immediate release of the gold ring without the levy of warehousing charges and awarded costs to the petitioner, thereby disposing of the petition.
List of Cases Cited
- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani — 2017 (353) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 8]
- Union of India v. Saba Simran — (2025) 32 Centax 132 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 8]
- Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner — (2025) 32 Centax 50 (Del.) = 2025 (394) E.L.T. 391 (Del.) — Referred [Para 8]
