'Highly Undesirable Practice, Wastes Judicial Time': Delhi High Court Laments Frequent Non-Appearance Of Govt Counsel In Customs Matters

A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “It is noticed that in a large number of customs matters, the Counsels are either not appearing or appear without proper instructions. In cases of nonappearance, the Court is compelled to request Standing Counsels present in Court to accept notice. This reflects a clear lack of coordination between the Department and the learned panel of Standing Counsels. Such a practice is highly undesirable and leads to gross wastage of judicial time.”

The development comes in a petition filed by a UAE resident aggrieved by confiscation of his 32 gms gold chain by the Customs, when he arrived in India to attend a wedding.

Petitioner was later permitted to redeem the gold chain upon payment of Rs.25,000/- for re-export and penalty of Rs.20,000/-. However, the Petitioner contended that the order was passed without proper hearing being given to him.

Petitioner claimed that the jewellery was his 'personal effect' exempted from duty. However, no one appeared to represent the Department, despite advance copy having been served.

This prompted the Court to lament frequent non-appearance of government counsels and it decided to proceed on merits.

At the outset, the Court agreed with the Petitioner that the impugned order was passed without properly hearing him.

Though the Petitioner appeared to have waived his right to a show cause notice and personal hearing, Court said the same cannot be done by way of a proforma.

In this regard, it referred to Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs (2025) where a coordinate bench has held that waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing obtained on a Standard Performa, would be contrary to law.

Similarly, in the case of Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (2025) it has been held that principles of natural justice have to be followed by the Customs Department before detention of the goods and an undertaking in a standard form as relied upon by the Customs Department waiving the issuance of show cause notice and personal hearing would not satisfy the requirements of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Court also observed that since the gold item was personal jewellery of the Petitioner, the same was not liable to be confiscated.

In this regard, it relied on Farida Aliyeva v. Commissioner of Customs (2024) where the personal jewellery seized from a tourist who was travelling from Azerbaijan to India was ordered to be released.

As such, the Petitioner was granted relief.

Appearance: Ms. Kavitha K.T., Mr. Subhash Chandra, Mr. S. Gopal & Ms. Syam Krishna, Advs for Petitioner

Case title: Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v. Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 289

Case no.: W.P.(C) 2690/2025

Click here to read order