HITESH MIGLANI vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23rd March, 2026 + W.P.(C) 14614/2022 & CM APPL. 44783/2022 HITESH MIGLANI S/ O MR. HARISH MIGLANI R/O C-4, KALKAJI DELHI .....PETITIONER Through: Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta and Ms. Ananya Basudha, Advocates Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 14, HUDCO VISHALA BUILDING B WING, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI 110066 .....RESPONDENT NO. 1 2. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), NEW CUSTOM HOUSE NEAR IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI- 110037 .....RESPONDENT NO. 2 3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, IGI AIRPORT, TERMINAL-3, NEW DELHI ….RESPONDENT NO.3 Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRERNA RAWAT Signing Date:04.06.2026 W.P.(C) 14614/2022 Page 1 of 32 16:33:34 Suhani Mathur and Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur, Advocates CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be the owner/importer of Silver jewellery, has preferred this petition seeking directions to the respondents to release the seized silver jewellery on payment of redemption fine and appropriate duty in terms of the statutory mandate under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1962” or “Customs Act”). 3. The prayer in the petition is confined only to the aforesaid extent, as the arguments about the sustainability of the order dated 22nd June, 2021 passed by Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), on its merits, are not canvassed. 4. The facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as under:- a. On 20th May, 2016, noticee nos.1 and 2 a