Delhi High Court Orders Release of Seized Gold Without Fine or Penalty—A Win for Procedural Fairness in Customs Detention
Release of Seized Gold
In a significant development in customs jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 5340/2025 – Ramvathi Gangari v. Commissioner of Customs has directed the release of gold jewellery detained by customs authorities at IGI Airport, New Delhi, without imposition of any fine or penalty. The judgment reaffirms the importance of procedural timelines under the Customs Act, 1962, and the rights of passengers facing arbitrary detention of personal belongings.
Background: A Customs Detention Without Due Process
The case arose when the Petitioner, Ms. Ramvathi Gangari, arrived from Kuwait on May 5, 2024, using an emergency passport. Upon her arrival at Terminal-3 of IGI Airport, she was intercepted by customs officials and four gold kadas(bangles) were seized. Despite her appearance before the department for appraisement, the Customs Department failed to proceed with a proper valuation or issue a show cause notice within the prescribed six-month period under Section 110 of the Customs Act.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Ashish Panday, along with Advocates Ajay Singh, Akshat Raghuvanshi, and Viraat Tripathi.
Court’s Finding: Lapse in Legal Compliance
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that the Customs Department had neither issued a show cause notice nor obtained an extension for detention under Section 110(2). Consequently, the Court ruled that the department had lost the authority to retain the seized items.
The Hon’ble Court noted:
“The gold items are liable to be released… without any fine or penalty… No show cause notice has been issued and no extension has been taken.“
The only condition imposed was the payment of applicable customs duty, which the petitioner had willingly agreed to pay.
No Fine or Penalty: A Legal Victory for Procedural Justice
The Court’s directive to release the seized gold without imposing a fine or penalty stands as a crucial precedent—highlighting that the failure of authorities to adhere to statutory timelines cannot translate into arbitrary hardship for passengers.
This ruling underlines the judiciary’s firm stance on maintaining checks against procedural lapses by administrative bodies.
Advocate Ashish Panday Insightful Legal Strategy
Advocate Ashish Panday, who regularly appears before the Delhi High Court and is known for his expertise in customs and tax litigation, played a pivotal role in securing relief for the petitioner. With his in-depth understanding of procedural safeguards under customs law, Mr. Panday effectively demonstrated how the prolonged inaction of the customs authorities violated statutory mandates and infringed upon the rights of the individual.
In several high-stakes matters involving gold seizures and import-export disputes, Advocate Panday has consistently upheld legal accountability in customs administration. This judgment adds another feather to his cap in the domain of indirect tax and cross-border compliance.
Conclusion: A Case Study in Upholding Individual Rights Against Administrative Delay
The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ramvathi Gangari v. Commissioner of Customs is not just a personal victory for the petitioner—it is a firm reminder to enforcement agencies that statutory procedure must be honored. With no scope left for issuing a delayed show cause notice, the decision reinforces the legal doctrine that administrative inertia cannot override individual liberty or property rights.
This case will likely serve as an important citation in future customs-related detentions and will strengthen arguments for timely issuance of notices under the Customs Act.
