$~83 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18729/2025 FAYZILATKHON GULYAMKHODAEVA .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Ashutosh, Mr. Pravej Hasan, Ms. Fatima Bano, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Mr.Avijit Dikshit, SC with Ms. Monika Verma, Advocates. M.-9650481199 Mr. Arnav Kumar with Mr. Keshav Mittal, Advocates for R-4 & 5 CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 10.12.2025 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Order-in-Original dated 5th June, 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘ impugned OIO’). 3. Vide the impugned OIO, eight gold chains of the Petitioner weighing a total of 192 grams (hereinafter, ‘gold chains’) have been absolutely confiscated. 4. A brief background of the Petitioner’s case is that, the Petitioner is an Uzbek National who had arrived in India on 19th March, 2024. Upon her arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi, she 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 12/12/2025 at 13:40:17 was intercepted by the concerned officials of the Customs Department and the gold chains were detained by the Customs Department vide detention receipt bearing No. 4022 dated 19th March, 2024. The same was appraised and a new detention receipt bearing No. 54058 dated 21st May, 2024 was issued. 5. The Petitioner had appointed an Advocate, who had visited the airport on 21st May, 2024 and had agreed for waiver of issuance of the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) and personal hearing. There are allegations of coercion which have been raised which this Court does not wish to go into as the Advocate was present and waiver has been signed by the Advocate. 6. Thereafter, the impugned OIO was passed on 05th June, 2024 and the same was also handed over to the Petitioner’s authorised representative. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned OIO, the Petitioner has preferred the present petition. 8. The submission on behalf of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that since no SCN has been issued to the Petitioner and no personal hearing has been granted, the detained gold chains are to be released in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3489/ 2024 titled Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja. 9. It is further submitted by ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the pre- printed waiver of issuance of SCN and personal hearing is not valid in law in terms of the decision in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:751- DB. Thus, the gold chains are to be released. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Avijit Dikshit, ld. SC for the Respondent submits that there has been a waiver of the issuance SCN and personal hearing in the present case, signed by the Advocate. 11. The Court has considered the matter. The impugned OIO has been with 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 12/12/2025 at 13:40:17 the Petitioner for more than one and half year so there can be no justification in challenging the same by way of writ petition. Thus, the Petitioner ought to avail of the Appellate Remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. 12. In Amit Kumar (supra), this Court has already held that pre-printed waivers of issuance of SCN and personal hearing would not be valid in law. However, unfortunately the pre-printed waiver has been signed and no SCN has been issued to the Petitioner, nor any personal hearing has been granted. 13. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the Petitioner deserves to be at least heard on merits. Accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to avail of the Appellate remedy under Section 128, of the Customs Act, 1962. 14. If the appeal is filed by the Petitioner by 15th January, 2026, the same shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be treated as barred by limitation. 15. Considering the considerable delay that has already taken place, the appeal shall be decided by the Appellate Authority expeditiously, and in any case within a period of six months. 16. The present petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. DECEMBER 10, 2025/Pallavi/sm 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 12/12/2025 at 13:40:17