PRIKSHITH JHAVER vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS TERMINAL 3 & ORS.

W.P.(C)-3527/2025HC Delhi10 September 20267 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Prikshith Jhaver, was intercepted at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, with 12 gold bars weighing 1200 grams, which were detained. On November 18, 2022, the Joint Commissioner of Customs passed an Order-in-Original, confiscating the gold bars but granting the Petitioner liberty to redeem them upon payment of applicable duty, redemption fine of Rs. 50,000, and penalty of Rs. 50,000. The Petitioner applied for quantification of the duty on December 28, 2022. The Revenue appealed the Order-in-Original, which was dismissed on August 3, 2023. Subsequently, the Petitioner applied for a refund, assuming the gold was disposed of, but this was rejected as premature on April 30, 2024. The gold bars remain with the Respondents.

What did the High Court hold?

The Court held that the Petitioner had approached the Respondents within the prescribed period seeking quantification of the applicable duty, which was not provided. The failure to exercise the option of redemption within the stipulated period was not solely attributable to the Petitioner, but also to the Respondents' inaction in quantifying the duty. Therefore, the decision in Gillette India Ltd. did not preclude the relief sought. The Court directed the Respondents to communicate the applicable duty payable within 15 days. Upon receipt of the duty, redemption fine, penalty, and interest at 8%, the Respondents were ordered to release the gold bars to the Petitioner. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to redemption of the confiscated gold bars despite the lapse of the stipulated period, considering the Respondents' failure to quantify the applicable duty? Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argues that he applied for the quantification of the applicable duty within the stipulated period, but the Respondents failed to respond. He contends that the failure to exercise the option of redemption within the stipulated period cannot be attributed solely to him due to the Respondents' inaction. The Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents to quantify the duty and allow redemption. Revenue's Contention: The Respondents do not dispute that the gold bars are available. They rely on the judgment in Gillette India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., arguing that once the period for redemption lapses and confiscation becomes absolute under Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods vest absolutely in the Central Government, precluding redemption by the owner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 125,Section 126

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
W.P.(C) 3527/2025 Page 1 of 7 $~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010148232025 + W.P.(C) 3527/2025 PRIKSHITH JHAVER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Upender Thakur, Ms. Shreya Kardam and Ms. Karishma Singh, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS TERMINAL 3 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SCC along with Mr. Apurv Yadav and Mr. Naman Choula, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

J U D G M E N T (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1.

Through the present Petition, the Petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the communication/order dated 08.08.2024. The Petitioner also seeks issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to quantify the applicable duty so as to enable the Petitioner to deposit the same.

2.

At the relevant time, the Petitioner was travelling from Delhi to Chennai. He was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi In

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 125

All 33 judgments and leading authorities on Section 125 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →