Case Details: Mushlina vs. Commissioner of Customs (2026) 38 Centax 21 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
- Shri Ashish Panday, Adv., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Vishal Chadha, SSC with Chandan Kumar, Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a foreign passenger arriving at Indira Gandhi International Airport from Riyadh, had two gold kadas worn by her seized by Customs authorities and had signed a pre-printed waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing. The Adjudicating Authority passed an Order-in-Original directing absolute confiscation of the jewellery and imposing penalty under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) ordered release of the jewellery on payment of redemption fine and applicable duty while upholding the penalty. Despite this favourable appellate order, the Customs Department neither implemented the order nor served the petitioner with notice of a revision application allegedly filed against it, and nearly one year elapsed without any proceedings being initiated, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking implementation of the appellate order and release of the goods.
High Court Held
The High Court held that since the Order-in-Appeal directing release of the goods had not been challenged through timely and properly communicated revision proceedings, the Department’s inaction could not prejudice the petitioner, and the appellate order was required to be implemented. The Court therefore directed Customs authorities to release the jewellery upon payment of redemption fine, applicable duty, and penalty, waived the warehousing charges as the delay was attributable to the Department, and further directed the Department to ensure proper representation before appellate authorities and to serve copies of revision applications on concerned parties in future.
