$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3798/2025 MS FARIDA SALAEVA .....Petitioner Through: Md. Ather and Mr. S. Vijay Kanth, Advocates. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 26.03.2025 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner – MS Farida Salaeva, challenging the detention receipt bearing New DR No.52921 dated 7th March, 2024 and the detention of the following gold items :- Description of goods detain A. Purity W Assessed Value Eleven gold chains 588 70 gm Four gold bracelets 562 15 gm Ten gold rings 583 27 gm Eight pair gold earrings 583 25 gm Three gold pendants 586 8 gm 3. The case of the Petitioner is that she is an Uzbek National holding Passport bearing New Passport No.FA9869035 (Old no: FA0106787). Upon her arrival at IGI Airport, Delhi from Uzbekistan on 05th March, 2024, she is This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/03/2025 at 12:32:14 stated to have been intercepted by the Respondent/Department. 4. Thereafter, the above-mentioned jewellery items were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, vide the impugned detention receipt. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the seized items were her used gold ornaments which do not warrant seizure under the Baggage Rules, 2016. It is also submitted that no show cause notice has been issued pursuant to the impugned detention and the 6 months period for issuing the same, as prescribed under Section 110(2) read with Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962, has lapsed. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Department submits that the Order-in-Original has been passed in this matter. The Petitioner has not availed her alternative statutory remedies before approaching this Court under its writ jurisdiction. 7. Heard. Considering the substantial quantity of jewellery items seized, the Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings, at this stage, do not warrant any interference. 8. Let a copy of the Order-in-Original be served upon the learned Counsel for the Petitioner within one week to enable her to pursue appropriate legal remedies. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms with the liberty of the Petitioner to avail of her remedies in accordance with law. 10. Pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. MARCH 26, 2025/nd/Ar. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/03/2025 at 12:32:14