Court Rules Petitioner Cannot Challenge Customs Duty at Belated Stage After Complying with Order-in-Original, Confirms Legality of Detention Charges
In a significant judgment dated September 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain) dismissed a writ petition filed by Ranpreet Singh challenging the recovery of customs duty and detention charges on a gold kada detained at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.
The petitioner, Ranpreet Singh, had his 98-gram gold kada detained on March 22, 2024, upon arrival from Bangkok when he opted for the green channel. The Customs officials detained the gold item, valued at Rs. 6,16,346/- with a purity of 981. Subsequently, an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated May 27, 2024, by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the gold with an option for redemption. The redemption required payment of a fine of Rs. 60,000, applicable customs duty based on tariff valuation as of the date of detention, and a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Notably, the petitioner did not challenge the OIO at the time it was passed. Instead, the petitioner complied with the order and paid the fine, penalty, customs duty, and detention charges, leading to the release of the detained gold kada. The petitioner later filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the levy of customs duty amounting to Rs. 2,71,193 and detention charges of Rs. 2,02,842.
The Court observed that the petitioner had earlier approached it through another writ petition (W.P.(C) 10880/2025), which challenged only the detention of the gold kada, not the validity of the OIO. The earlier petition was disposed of with directions that the Customs Department should accept the OIO and release the gold upon payment of redemption fine and penalty, thereby affirming the procedural correctness of the OIO.
The Court emphasized that the petitioner, having accepted and acted upon the OIO by paying the requisite amounts, could not at a belated stage indirectly assail the levy of customs duty through a writ petition. The Court further held that detention charges, characterized as warehouse charges, were recoverable under statutory provisions and there was no evidence to show these charges were imposed contrary to law.
Accordingly, the Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the recovery of customs duty and detention charges, and dismissed the writ petition, declining to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction in this matter.
This judgment reinforces the principle that once an Order-in-Original is accepted and complied with by a party, they cannot later seek to challenge the conditions imposed therein through indirect means. It also affirms the recoverability of detention charges under the Customs Act and related statutory provisions.
Bottom Line:
Customs - Petitioner having accepted and acted upon Order-in-Original directing release of detained gold kada on payment of redemption fine, applicable customs duty and penalty, without challenging said order, cannot at a belated stage indirectly assail levy of customs duty through writ petition - Detention charges also not liable to be interfered with in absence of any case that same were contrary to statutory provisions.
Statutory provision(s):
Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 112(a), 112(b), 125(3)
Ranpreet Singh v. Commissioner of Customs, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992061
