The Delhi High Court has upheld an order imposing a penalty and fine worth Rs. 1.05 lakhs on the Uzbekistan National citing improper gold import and suppression of facts.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has observed that since the order has itself permitted the Petitioner to redeem the goods subject to the payment of a fine of Rs. 58,000 and a penalty of Rs. 47,000, let the Petitioner deposit the same with the Customs Department within a period of four weeks from the date of release of the order.
The Petitioner, Gayrat Djabarov who is an Uzbekistan National holding a passport. It is his case that he came to India by flight, as a tourist, and landed at Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport on 26th April, 2024. He was carrying some gold chains and gold earrings etc., and the same was detained by the Customs Department at the Airport itself.
He was carrying some gold chains and gold earrings etc., and the same was detained by the Customs Department at the Airport itself.
After the detention receipt bearing DR No. DR/INDEL4/26.04.2024/52613 was issued, he did not receive any communication relating to show cause notice or any order which has been passed against him. It is claimed that representations were made by him repeatedly; however, no reply has been received.
On behalf of the Department, Order in Original has been placed on record. According to the order, the Petitioner had been permitted to redeem the goods on payment of fine.
The Petitioner is guilty of concealing material facts. Rishabh Atri as an authorised representative. An authorization letter along with the Bar Council of Delhi identity card has been placed on record. According to the Department, the Order was received by his authorised representative.
The court noted that a Petitioner who approaches the Court with unclean hands by suppressing litigation and his involvement therein is disqualified from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
On a query from the Court as to why the copy of the authority letter and the fact that the authorized representative had received the order, was not stated in the petition, it is submitted that the authority letter has been cancelled, however, no copy is being placed on record.
The court held that the goods shall be released to the Petitioner or his authorised representative after confirming their identity. The Petitioner shall send a specific email confirming his personal presence or the presence of his representative to the concerned official.
Case Details
Case Title: Gayrat Djabarov Versus Commissioner Of Customs
Case No.: W.P. (C) 1110/2025
Date: 27/04/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Rathore, Mr. Maroof Khan, Ms. Richa Kumari & Mr. Pawan
Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Mr. Sandip Munian & Ms. Jyotsna Vyas
