[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Dhruv Mittal vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 December, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd December, 2025
Uploaded on: 4th December, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 12774/2025
DHRUV MITTAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Raheja & Mr. Gaurav
Prakash, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC, CBIC with
Ms. Suhani Mathur, Mr. Akshay
Saxena, Ms. Shivali Saxena, Mr. Jai
Ahuja & Mr. Jatin Gaur, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This is an application seeking execution of the order dated 22nd August,
2025 by which the Customs Department was directed to release the detained
goods comprising of a gold chain weighing about 45 grams to the Petitioner
and the iPhone 15 Pro (128gb variant), subject to payment of applicable
Customs duty only in respect of the said iPhone. The operative portion of the
said order reads as under:
"12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the
opinion that the gold chain weighing about 45 grams
deserves to be released to the Petitioner without any
Customs duty.
13. Insofar as the I-phone is concerned, the same shall
be released after paying the applicable Customs duty.
14. In the facts of the present case, no warehousing
charges shall be liable to be paid.
15. The petition is disposed of in the above terms along
with pending application(s), if any."
3. The application states that the Petitioner repeatedly visited the
Respondent's office at the IGI Airport, New Delhi on 27 th August, 2025 and
on 17th September, 2025. However, the Petitioner was only informed that the
matter is pending under review with the legal team of the Customs
Department.
4. This is clear disobedience of the order passed by the Court.
5. It is noted that on the last date i.e., 24th September, 2025, when the
present application was taken up, it was informed by the ld. SSC that the
Customs Department is likely to challenge the order dated 22nd August, 2025
before the Supreme Court. However, no such appeal/SLP has been preferred
by the Department and now the time for filing the same has also expired.
6. This Court repeatedly notices that various judgments and orders which
are passed, especially order directing release of detained goods to the
respective passengers, are not being given effect to on the ground that the
Customs Department intends to avail of some remedies. This results in the
matters being delayed beyond a reasonable period. Unfortunately, the same
situation is present in this case also.
7. The order directing release of detained goods is of 22 nd August, 2025.
The limitation for filing an SLP has also lapsed. However, even now there is
no implementation by the Customs Department of the said order.
8. Under such circumstances, the Customs Department is directed to give
effect to the order dated 22nd August, 2025 within a period of one week. Upon
the failure of the Customs Department to comply with the above direction,
costs of Rs. 20,000/- shall be liable to be paid to the Petitioner.
9. Let the Petitioner appear before the Customs Department on 9th
December, 2025 for release of the detained items in terms of order dated 22nd
August, 2025.
10. The nodal officer mentioned below shall facilitate the Petitioner's
appearance before the competent authority for compliance with the present
order:
Mr. Mukesh Gulia, Superintendent, Legal
Office of Commissioner, Customs
IGI Airports, T-3, New Delhi
Email id: [email protected]
Mob. No. 9999922479
11. Before parting, the Court is compelled to remind the Customs
Department that the statutory limitations prescribed under the relevant Acts
are not merely binding on the passengers praying for release of their jewellery,
personal items or other goods. The Customs Department is expected to be fair
and not unreasonably prolong a passenger's hardship in seeking release of
their goods, especially where there is no allegation of fraud, smuggling, etc.,
raised by the Department. If the department resorts to delaying tactics in
giving effect to the judgements and orders passed by Courts, then the Court
would be compelled to take stringent action along with costs to be paid by the
official concerned.
12. The present application is disposed of in the above terms.
13. A copy of this order be communicated by the Registry, as also through
Mr. Harpreet Singh, ld. SSC, to the OSD (Legal), Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs on the email ([email protected]) for necessary
information and compliance.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
RENU BHATNAGAR
JUDGE
DECEMBER 3, 2025
kk/msh
