RAJINDER KUMAR VASIR v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS TERMINAL -3
W.P.(C)/19579/2025 · 2026-04-15
Ajay Digpaul, Nitin Wasudeo Sambre
Writ Petition (Civil)body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2973 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2973 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
$~10 (14.04.2026) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19579/2025
RAJINDER KUMAR VASIR
.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms. Manjit Kaur, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS TERMINAL -3
.....Respondent Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Aryaman Singh Chouhan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
O R D E R %
15.04.2026
[File taken up today in view of Notification No. 71/G-4/Genl.- I/DHC dated 10.04.2026, wherein the matters listed on 14th April, 2026 were directed to be taken up for hearing on 15th April, 2026.]
1. Heard. 2. The order impugned dated 27th June 2025 and 15th February 2024 resulted into denial of Free Allowance to the petitioner who travelled abroad due to a failure on his part to declare the goods (a gold kada weighing 88 grams) while leaving the country. 3. The confiscation of the gold kada was ordered along with the penalty. 4. The redemption, thereafter, was granted in favour of the petitioner subject to payment of redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- and penalty of Rs. 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 20/04/2026 at 12:05:34
50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 112(a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act. 5. Drawing support from the photographs and other material on the record, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner practices Sikhism which contemplates that a Sikh must have a kada, kesh, kangha, kachhera and kirpan. According to him, as a mandatory ritual which is followed in the religion, he was carrying a kada. He would claim that the kada was owned and possessed by him before his travel, which can be inferred from not only the photograph of marriage but also that of the receipt that he has produced on record. 6. That being so, he would claim that there is no question of payment of redemption fine of penalty and the petitioner be, accordingly, given custody of the detained item i.e. gold kada. 7.
The claim is resisted by learned counsel for respondent, as according to him, the petitioner has failed to declare the aforesaid goods while he travelled abroad and as such there is non-compliance of statutory provision. 8. According to him, once both the authorities have held that the confiscation and redemption can be granted in favour of the petitioner, in support of which due reasons are recorded, this Court should be slow in causing interference. 9. Having appreciated the rival contentions, it is apparent that the photographs and the bills which are shown on record reflects that there was a redesigning of the gold item way back of the same value and not only that, the photographs establishes that the petitioner was wearing a kada during his marriage. 10. There is no reason to deny the aforesaid evidence, particularly in 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 20/04/2026 at 12:05:34
absence of there being any stand to that effect from the side of the respondent. 11. In such an eventuality, we are left with no other option but to accept the contention of the petitioner that he is willing to pay the redemption fine. 12. In this background, in our view, the petitioner cannot be saddled with penalty and the warehouse charges. 13. That being so, we direct that the order to the extent of payment of penalty is set aside upon condition that the petitioner shall pay the redemption charges within a period of two weeks from today. 14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as observed herein, we further direct that the warehouse charges shall also be waived in favour of the petitioner. 15. The petition, as such, stands allowed in above terms.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J
AJAY DIGPAUL, J
APRIL 15, 2026/ar/av
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 20/04/2026 at 12:05:34