HEADNOTE
Mohit Mann v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Jurisdiction: Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226) & Contempt Jurisdiction
Bench: Justices Prathiba M. Singh & Renu Bhatnagar
Date of Judgment: December 11, 2025
Citation: W.P.(C) 18328/2025; Review Pet. 621/2025; Cont.Cas.(C) 1875/2025 (Delhi High Court)
Laws / Sections Involved:
Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 77, 79, 80, 124;
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Keywords: Customs detention airport, concealment of goods, Green Channel misuse, writ recall, contempt dismissed, IGI Airport seizure
Summary
The Delhi High Court recalled its earlier interim order granting relief to a passenger detained by Customs at IGI Airport after finding that material facts had been deliberately concealed from the Court. Upon review, the Court accepted the Customs Department’s submission that the petitioner had attempted to smuggle a large quantity of undeclared goods—including 17 mobile phones and over 500 grams of gold jewellery—by concealing them in a backpack hung on an infant’s stroller while passing through the Green Channel. CCTV footage and seizure records demonstrated deliberate concealment and misrepresentation. Holding that the writ jurisdiction had been invoked on misleading premises, the Court recalled the earlier order directing release of goods, permitted Customs to proceed under Section 124 of the Customs Act, and dismissed the contempt petition with costs of ₹10,000 for abuse of process.
Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the Customs Department’s review petition, recalled its interim order dated 3 December 2025, and dismissed the connected contempt petition. The Court held that the petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands, having suppressed crucial facts relating to concealment and quantity of undeclared goods. Customs authorities were permitted to proceed in accordance with law by issuing a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act.
Facts
The petitioner, an Indian-origin US citizen, arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi, on the night of 14–15 November 2025 along with his wife and infant child. Customs officials intercepted the family while they were passing through the Green Channel. Upon X-ray scanning and inspection, a backpack attached to the infant’s stroller was found to contain a large number of high-value goods, including multiple new mobile phones, luxury watches, electronic devices, and gold jewellery. The petitioner initially approached the High Court alleging illegal detention and harassment, leading to an interim order granting partial relief. Subsequent review proceedings revealed significant non-disclosure of facts.
Issues
Whether the interim relief granted earlier was liable to be recalled on account of suppression of material facts, and whether the petitioner had abused the writ and contempt jurisdiction of the High Court.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner initially claimed that the detained goods largely comprised personal effects and gifts for family weddings, and that he was illegally detained for over 40 hours at the airport. In the contempt proceedings, he alleged non-compliance with the interim order directing release of certain items.
Respondents’ arguments
The Customs Department submitted that the petitioner had deliberately concealed facts from the Court. It was argued that the goods were hidden in a backpack attached to an infant’s stroller, that the petitioner was attempting to pass through the Green Channel without declaration, and that CCTV footage clearly established intentional concealment. The Department contended that the earlier order was obtained by misleading the Court and deserved recall.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and reiterated that equitable relief is unavailable to litigants who suppress material facts. It noted that customs law mandates declaration of dutiable goods and that misuse of the Green Channel coupled with concealment attracts statutory कार्रवाई under the Customs Act.
Precedent analysis
While no specific precedent was cited, the Court applied settled principles that suppression of facts and misleading pleadings disentitle a party to discretionary relief, particularly in writ and contempt proceedings.
Court’s reasoning
After perusing CCTV footage and seizure records, the Court found that the petitioner had attempted to conceal 17 mobile phones and more than 500 grams of gold jewellery and had falsely projected the case as one of illegal detention. The Court observed that attending weddings could not justify carrying such quantities of undeclared valuables. It held that the interim order dated 3 December 2025 was passed on an incorrect factual premise created by the petitioner’s own conduct and submissions.
Conclusion
The High Court recalled its earlier interim order, dismissed the writ petition and review petition in terms permitting Customs to proceed under law, and dismissed the contempt petition with costs of ₹10,000 payable to the Customs Department.
Implications
This judgment sends a clear message that airport customs violations coupled with suppression of facts will not receive judicial indulgence. It reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be invoked to shield deliberate concealment or smuggling, and that abuse of contempt jurisdiction may attract monetary costs.
Case law / statutory references
• Section 124, Customs Act, 1962
Principle: Mandatory issuance of show cause notice before confiscation or penalty.
Application: Customs permitted to proceed by issuing SCN.
• Doctrine of clean hands (writ jurisdiction)
Principle: Suppression of material facts disentitles equitable relief.
Application: Basis for recall of interim order and dismissal of contempt.
FAQs
Q1. Why did the Delhi High Court recall its earlier order?
Because the petitioner concealed material facts and misled the Court regarding the nature and quantity of goods.
Q2. What goods were allegedly concealed?
Seventeen mobile phones and over 500 grams of gold jewellery, hidden in a stroller backpack.
Q3. What action can Customs now take?
Customs may issue a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act and proceed in accordance with law.
Also Read: Bombay High Court directs time-bound scrutiny and release of RTE reimbursement arrears
