Kahakasha Parvin v. The Commissioner Of Customs And Ors

What happened

On 15 March 2024 the petitioner arrived at the Delhi airport from Saudi Arabia and was stopped at the green channel; the petitioner's gold jewellery, a pair of bangles and a kada weighing 170 grams, was detained. The Order-in-Original of 22 March 2024 confiscated it with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of ₹1,55,000 and a penalty of ₹1,00,000. The petitioner succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals) by an order of 2 February 2026, but the department filed a revision. The petitioner said there was willingness to comply with the order, yet the goods were not being released. The revision had been argued on 8 October 2026 and the order was awaited.

Questions before the court

• Can the customs department withhold detained goods after losing in appeal, merely because it has filed a revision and no stay has been granted?

Why the court ruled this way

The Court noted that the question was arising in a number of cases: whether a department aggrieved by an order-in-original and pursuing statutory remedies can refuse to release detained goods when it has not asked for, and the appellate or revisional authority has not granted, any interim protection (paragraph 5). It also noted that the petitioner was bearing demurrage charges because of the department's own litigation, a question left for an appropriate case (paragraph 6). Since the revision had already been argued, the Court disposed of the petition with directions rather than decide the larger questions (paragraph 7).

Controlling point

Without a stay of the order-in-original, the pendency of the department's revision, or delay in the revision order reaching the officers, is no reason to hold back release once the petitioner complies with the order.

Order and next steps

The petitioner must, within three weeks, comply with the conditions imposed in the Order-in-Original. Subject to the outcome of the revision, the request for release of the goods is to be considered within two weeks after compliance. The petitioner may represent to the respondents for waiver of demurrage charges, which is to be considered in accordance with law. It was clarified that non-receipt of the revision order in the meantime is not an impediment to release, as there is no stay of the Order-in-Original.

Practical implications

A traveller or importer who has won in appeal and is told the goods cannot be released because the department has filed a revision should check whether any stay has been granted, comply with the conditions of the order, and put the request for release and for demurrage waiver in writing, citing this order.

Limits of this ruling

• The Court left open the larger questions it identified, including liability for demurrage during the department's own appeal or revision. The direction is subject to the outcome of the revision.