$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010419682026 + W.P.(C) 12937/2026, CM APPL. 60190/2026 and CM APPL. 60191/2026 JASPREET SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj, Ms. Geetika Ojha, Mr. Jatin, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Adhiraj Singh, GP wtih Mr. Ayush Srivastava, Adv. for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners pray for the following reliefs: “A. issue a writ, order or direction declaring that the certification proceedings dated 18/10/2018 under Section 110(1B) and the disposal of the Petitioners' seized gold (D.R. Nos. 22829 and 22830 dated 03/07/2018) to Respondent No. 5 on 21/01/2019, effected without notice, without hearing, without notice under Section 150 and before adjudication, are illegal, void and violative of Sections 110(1B) and 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 and of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India; B. issue a writ, order or direction declaring that the certification proceedings dated 18/10/2018 under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962, having been conducted before an Executive Magistrate, are without jurisdiction and void, and that the inventory, photographs and list generated therein are not documents certified by a Magistrate under Section 110(1C) of the said Act; C. issue a writ, order or direction declaring that the disposal of the Petitioners seized gold to Respondent No. 5 on 21/01/2019 was not 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 10/09/2026 at 11:28:12 effected in any manner determined by the Central Government under Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962, and is void for want of the authority of law within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India; D. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondents to disclose, on affidavit, the complete account of the said gold: the date and form of its disposal, the weight and purity recorded, the consideration received from or through SPMCIL and the Reserve Bank of India, the charges deducted, and the head and date of credit of the proceeds to Government; E. direct the Respondents to restore to the Petitioners 1400 grams of gold of 995 purity in specie, if the same or any part thereof remains identifiable, subject to adjustment of the statutory dues quantified in Order-in-Original No. 31/Adjn/2019; F. in the alternative, direct the Respondents jointly and severally to pay to the Petitioners the market value of 1400 grams of gold of 995 purity at the IBJA rate prevailing on the date of actual payment, after adjusting the statutory dues quantified in Order-in-Original No. 31/Adjn/2019, namely Rs. 27,02,416 together with interest under Section 28AA on the duty of Rs. 5,60,416, and after giving credit for the pre-deposits of Rs. 1,60,650, with interest at such rate as this Hon'ble Court deems just from 21/01/2019 till payment; G. in the further alternative, direct payment of the entire proceeds realised upon the transfer of the gold, together with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum or such other rate as this Hon'ble Court deems just from 21/01/2019 till payment, after adjustment of the said statutory dues and credit of the said pre-deposits; H. declare that the Schedule to Notification No. 31/86-Customs dated 05/02/1986 (as amended), insofar as it includes gold, is ultra vires Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and strike it down to that extent, or read it down so as to exclude gold not shown to be perishable, hazardous or depreciating; I. declare Sections 110(1B), 110(1C) and 110(1D) of the Customs Act, 1962 unconstitutional insofar as they permit certification and disposal of seized gold without notice to, and hearing of, the owner and the person from whose possession it was seized, and without any discretion to decline or defer the application; or in the alternative read the said provisions down so as to require prior written notice, an opportunity of hearing, a genuine discretion including deferment pending adjudication or a pending request for release, consideration of provisional release under Section 110A, and intimation of any disposal with accounts within a fixed period; J. declare that Section 126 read with Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, insofar as it permits the Central Government to retain sale 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 10/09/2026 at 11:28:12 proceeds in excess of the duty, interest, fine, penalty and lawful charges due to it, is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution and void to that extent; or in the alternative read into the said provisions an obligation to return such surplus to the owner, on the pattern of Section 150(2)(e); K. grant the Petitioners liberty to file their application for compounding under Section 137(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 before Respondent No. 4 as and when this Hon'ble Court may direct and within such time as it may fix; direct Respondent No. 4 to receive and entertain the same without insisting upon prior deposit of duty, penalty and interest, dispensing with the requirement under the second proviso to Rule 4(3), or treating it as constructively satisfied out of the value of the Petitioners' property retained by the Respondents, or adjusting it against that value; direct that the application be decided by a reasoned order, after an opportunity of hearing in terms of the first proviso to Rule 4(3), within a time-bound period; and declare that upon compounding the proceedings in CC No. 1123/2022 shall stand closed with immunity under Rule 6 of the said Rules; L. read down Section 137(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 so as to require the compounding authority to decide applications on relevant considerations, by reasoned order, within a fixed period and after hearing; M. in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, quash the proceedings in CC No. 1123/2022, titled Air Customs v. Jaspreet Singh & Ors., pending before the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate / Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, as an abuse of the process of court; Ν. declare that the Respondents, having destroyed the goods, are disentitled from invoking Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Petitioners in CC No. 1123/2022 O. award costs of the present Petition; and pass such other and further orders, interim and final, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. The Petitioners, husband and wife, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Bangkok on 03.07.2018 and were intercepted at the Green Channel. Upon search, 1400 grams of gold was recovered from their possession, which was seized under 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 10/09/2026 at 11:28:12 Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1962’]. Consequently, the Petitioners were arrested under Section 104 of the Act of 1962 and subsequently released on bail on 04.07.2018. Their statements were also recorded under Section 108 of the Act of 1962. 3. On 24.12.2018, a Show Cause Notice came to be issued, to which the Petitioners filed their reply. While the adjudication proceedings were pending, the seized gold was released to SPMCIL on 21.01.2019, allegedly without notice to the Petitioners and prior to adjudication. Subsequently, vide Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 05.02.2019, the Adjudicating Authority ordered absolute confiscation of the gold and imposed customs duty, interest and penalties upon the Petitioners. The appeals preferred against the OIO, by the Petitioners were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 04.12.2020, and the Revision Applications (RAs) filed on 08.02.2021 thereafter were also rejected on 23.05.2022. In the interregnum, a criminal complaint was also instituted against the Petitioners. 4. It is the case of the Petitioners that the disposal of the seized gold was never disclosed to them during the adjudication, appellate, revisionary or criminal proceedings. The fact of such disposal came to their knowledge for the first time pursuant to an RTI reply dated 04.02.2026, which disclosed that the gold had been released to SPMCIL on 21.01.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners have approached this Court, inter alia, challenging the alleged disposal of the seized gold and seeking appropriate consequential reliefs. 5. The controversy raised by the Petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not give rise to any surviving substantive relief and, at best, raises an academic issue. 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 10/09/2026 at 11:28:12 6. It is evident that the Petitioners were intercepted at the IGI on 03.07.2018 and 1400 grams of gold were recovered from their possession. Following which, they were served with a SCN on 24.12.2018, to which they submitted their reply on 16.01.2019. 7. Upon adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority by way of OIO passed a detailed Order, directing absolute confiscating of the said gold. Thereafter, the appeals preferred by the Petitioners against the aforesaid Order, also came to be dismissed on 04.12.2020. Thereafter, the RAs preferred by the Petitioners against the Order dated 04.12.2020, also came to be dismissed vide Order 23.05.2022. 8. It is also relevant to note that the Petitioners are presently facing criminal prosecution pursuant to the criminal complaint instituted against them, which is stated to be pending before the Trial Court. 9. The grievance of the Petitioners in the present proceedings is that they subsequently came to know that the seized gold had been disposed of prior to the passing of the OIO. According to the Petitioners, such disposal could not have been effected prior to the order of confiscation. 10. This Court has heard learned counsel representing the Petitioners at length and considered his submissions. 11. The record reveals that the order of absolute confiscation of the seized gold attained finality upon dismissal of the RAs in May 2022. However, the present Petition, only came to be instituted on 05.09.2026. Significantly, the Petitioners have not challenged the Order dated 23.05.2022 or sought any relief against the order of absolute confiscation. 12. In view of the aforesaid position, the seized gold on absolute confiscation no longer belongs to the Petitioners. Hence, the issue 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 10/09/2026 at 11:28:12 sought to be raised in the present Petition is merely academic in nature. 13. Consequently, this Court finds no reason to exercise its writ jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition, along with the pending applications, is dismissed. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. SEPTEMBER 7, 2026 jai/hr 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 10/09/2026 at 11:28:12