Ranpreet Singh v. Commissioner Of Customs

What happened

The petitioner left India for Bangkok on 17 March 2024 and, on returning to Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 22 March 2024, chose the green channel and was intercepted. The traveller's gold kada weighing 98 grams, valued at ₹6,16,346 with an average purity of 981, was detained on 22 March 2024. By an Order-in-Original of 27 May 2024 the Assistant Commissioner of Customs confiscated it with an option to redeem it on payment of a fine of ₹60,000, the applicable customs duty at the tariff valuation on the date of detention, and a penalty of ₹50,000 under sections 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act. The petitioner did not challenge that order. The Customs Department's appeal was dismissed on 30 December 2024 and its revision remained pending. In W.P.(C) 10880/2025 this Court directed on 28 July 2025 that the revision be decided, and disposed of the petition on 25 September 2025 with a direction that the kada be released on payment of the redemption fine and penalty determined in the Order-in-Original. It was then released on payment of the fine, penalty, customs duty and detention charges. The petitioner argued that the interim order of 28 July 2025 had recorded that the kada was old jewellery exempt under the Baggage Rules, 2016, so that no duty or detention charges could be levied. The Department said that the traveller never challenged the Order-in-Original, that the earlier writ was directed against the detention, and that detention charges are warehouse charges recoverable under the statutory provisions.

Questions before the court

• Can the customs duty and detention charges collected on release of the gold kada be challenged in a writ when the Order-in-Original imposing the duty was never challenged?

Why the court ruled this way

The operative part of the Order-in-Original allowed redemption on payment of a fine of ₹60,000 together with the applicable duty at the tariff valuation on the date of detention, and the offer was subject to the condition that the passenger would not dispute the identity and valuation of the goods. The Department used the statutory remedies, whereas the petitioner never challenged the Order-in-Original, and the kada was released in compliance with it (paragraphs 5–6). The Court that decided the earlier writ petition did not examine the validity of the Order-in-Original; the challenge there was to the detention, in which the petitioner did not succeed, and the operative directions were for release as per the Order-in-Original (paragraph 7). Even in this writ petition there was no challenge to the Order-in-Original, and the grievance was against the duty charged, so the petitioner could not at this belated stage indirectly challenge the condition imposed in it after failing to avail the remedies against that condition (paragraph 8). No case was made out that the detention charges recovered were contrary to the statutory provisions (paragraph 9).

Controlling point

Duty that is payable under the conditions of an unchallenged Order-in-Original cannot be contested through a later writ petition, and detention charges will not be interfered with in the absence of a statutory illegality.

Order and next steps

The Court held that no ground was made out to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.

Practical implications

A passenger who is offered redemption subject to conditions, including duty, should appeal the Order-in-Original within time if those conditions are disputed, since a writ after paying under protest is unlikely to be entertained.

Limits of this ruling

• The Court did not examine whether the kada was exempt under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and dealt with the writ only on the absence of a challenge to the Order-in-Original and of any statutory illegality in the detention charges.