Court Rules No Stay on Appellate Order Means No Justification for Withholding Goods; Petitioner Allowed to Seek Waiver of Demurrage Charges
In a significant judgment dated October 9, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain) addressed the issue of release of detained gold jewellery despite the pendency of a departmental revision petition. The Court was hearing the writ petition filed by Kahakasha Parvin, whose gold jewellery was detained by the Customs authorities at IGI Airport, Delhi, upon her arrival from Saudi Arabia in March 2024.
The Customs officials had confiscated the jewellery-a pair of gold bangles and a gold kada weighing 170 grams-through an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated March 22, 2024, which imposed a fine and penalty. While the petitioner succeeded in the appeal against this order, the department filed a revision petition challenging the appellate order. However, despite the absence of any stay or interim relief granted by the appellate or revisional authorities, the Customs department withheld the release of the jewellery.
The Court observed that mere pendency of the revision petition does not legally justify withholding the release of detained goods if there is no specific stay on the appellate order. The bench clarified that the petitioner was entitled to compliance with the appellate order and directed her to fulfill the conditions imposed therein within three weeks. Subsequently, the department was ordered to consider the release of the jewellery within two weeks, regardless of whether the revision order was received or not.
Additionally, the Court highlighted an important concern regarding demurrage charges levied on detained goods during litigation initiated by the department itself. While leaving the issue open for detailed consideration in appropriate cases, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to make a representation seeking waiver of demurrage charges, which the authorities must consider in accordance with law.
This judgment underscores the principle that departmental remedies like revisions cannot be used as a tool to indefinitely delay the release of goods when no stay is granted. It also brings to light the financial burden on individuals caused by demurrage charges during protracted legal proceedings and signals the need for a fair approach in such matters.
Bottom Line:
Customs - Release of detained gold jewellery - Mere pendency of department's revision against appellate order does not justify withholding release in absence of any stay - Non-receipt of revision order cannot be an impediment to release - Petitioner permitted to seek waiver of demurrage charges.
Statutory provision(s):
Customs Act, 1962 (implicit, as the case involves customs detention, appeals, and revisions); Order-in-Appeal provisions under Customs law.
Kahakasha Parvin v. Commissioner of Customs, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996369
