Customs Department Must Intimate Party About Disposal Of Confiscated Property Both Via Email And On Mobile: Delhi High Court

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma reasoned this will ensure that a party who succeeded in Court or Tribunal against the detention of the property is not deprived of their properties.

The observation was made while dealing with a case where despite the order of the Commissioner for release of gold seized by the Department from the Petitioner- a Russian national, the articles were disposed of by the Customs.

The Department claimed that the oversight happened because the Commissioner's Order (in appeal) was not communicated to the Department.

“The Order-in-Appeal had clearly directed the release and re-export of the detained gold, subject to payment of redemption fine and penalty. The said order could not have been ignored by the Customs Department,” the Court observed at the outset.

It also found that the disposal proceedings were completed without even intimating the Petitioner. Rather, the Department had proceeded to even accept a redemption fine and penalty from the Petitioner, despite disposal of the gold. Moreover, even the High Court was not informed of such disposal, despite the release order passed by it.

In this backdrop the Court observed, “Even if there was a lack of communication, the fact of disposal of the detained gold ought to have been communicated to the Court, when the W.P. (C) No. 6690/2023 was being heard…In the said petition, the Court had clearly directed release of the detained gold, which order would not have been passed if the gold was already disposed of. The Petitioner had in fact deposited the redemption fine and penalty as directed.”

The Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to the entire value of the detained gold as on the market rate prevalent on the day.

It directed the Customs Department to pay the same within a period of three weeks. “If the said amount is not paid within three weeks, costs of Rs.1,00,000/- would be liable to be paid by the Customs Department to the Petitioner,” Court cautioned and disposed of the matter.

Appearance: Mr. S. Vijay Kanth and Mr. Utkarsh Tripathi, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Gibran Naushad, Sr. SC. (M: 9910305746). Mr. Sumit Kumar, A.C.S, Mr. Sunil Kumar, A.C.S and Mr. Abhitesh Kumar, A.L.O, Customs Department.

Case title: Gor Sharian v. The Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 191

Case no.: W.P.(C) 1807/2025

Click here to read order