TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing which he was not permitted to approach the Customs counter, not allowed to make any voluntary declaration, and not produced before any lawful authority, and was effectively held incommunicado without legal justification. During detention, CISF personnel opened his baggage, inspected contents, prepared inventory lists and purported to seize articles, and the document dated 13.11.2025 styled as 'seizure lists' bear only signatures of CISF personnel including Ankit Kumar SI/EXE CISF Unit ASG Hyderabad, with no participation of any Customs officer. 1.2. Petitioner states that only on 14.11.2025, he was served with summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act') by Respondent No. 3, issued by Air Customs Superintendent, Air Intelligence Unit, RGIA, showing that Customs authorities were not involved at the time of initial detention and seizure, and thereafter a detailed seizure list and detention receipt were issued on 14-11-2025 recording detention of electronic items including mobile phones and accessories. He therefore is stated to have filed Writ Petition No. 36349 of 2025 seeking direction to Customs authorities to consider his representation for rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erminal Building. CISF personnel observed him loitering suspiciously in the arrival village area and attempting to hand over two boxes to Mr. Sk Iftekhar Alam of Hyderabad. At about 05:24 hours, based on behavioural profiling, both were directed for baggage screening through X-BIS, which revealed 27 Apple i Phones, 27 WHOOP fitness bands and 35 perfume bottles valued approximately at Rs. 57 lakhs. Petitioner failed to produce valid documents or proof of purchase. 2.1. It is stated, goods and petitioner's original passport were handed over to the local police for further action, thereafter, as advised by the police, handed over to Customs authorities vide letter dated 13.11.2025. Due to the Delhi blast incident, heightened security alert was issued and Bureau of Civil Aviation Security issued Letter dated 10.11.2025 mandating enhanced surveillance, access control checks and monitoring at airports including city-side areas. RGIA being a hyper-sensitive airport required strict vigilance including passenger profiling and questioning. Petitioner's movements outside the terminal raised security concerns and during questioning and screening, electronic items were found without document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation Security Programme (NCASP) and Aircraft Security Rules, 2023, CISF is responsible for maintaining order and implementing security measures across aerodrome premises, and is mandated to act upon suspicious behaviour. Due to high alert and suspicious conduct, CISF detained and questioned petitioner and upon finding electronic items without documents, handed him over to local police and thereafter, to Customs for action within their jurisdiction. It is stated, actions are within statutory mandate and not void or ultra vires. 2.5. It is further stated that CISF does not conduct seizure under the Customs Act and routine security screening does not amount to seizure, and petitioner is misleading the Court. Routine security procedures do not constitute infringement warranting writ of mandamus. It is stated finally that the prayer for independent enquiry is not maintainable as no prima facie material is produced by petitioner to substantiate allegations against CISF officers, and the events of 13-14.11.2025 were dealt with strictly in accordance with law, procedure and bona fide discharge of duties. 3. Respondent No. 3, in the counter, stated that as the passenger failed to pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the presence of two independent witnesses and proceedings were conducted transparently. Summons were issued under Section 108 of the Act on 14.11.2025 and statements were recorded and further investigation is in progress and show cause notice is under preparation. 3.2. It is reiterated that interception was on 13.11.2025 at 05:24 hours outside the terminal when the passenger attempted to hand over goods to Mr. Sk Iftekhar Alam and upon detection of goods and failure to produce documents, goods and persons were handed over to Customs at 17:25 hours. Thereafter, Panchanama proceedings commenced on 13.11.2025 and concluded at 04:00 hours on 14.11.2025 resulting in seizure of goods under the Act, 1962 and summons were issued at 06:00 hours on 14.11.2025. All actions were in compliance with law and due process. It is stated, this Court in Writ Petition No. 36349 of 2025 directed Respondent No. 3 to take steps in accordance with law, and in compliance, proceedings under the 1962 Act are in progress and show cause notice is under preparation and opportunity of hearing would be given in accordance with principles of natural justice. 3.3. It is further stated that all proceedings wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... heightened alert. The interception of petitioner outside the customs area after completion of formalities, while attempting to hand over goods to another individual, brings the case squarely within the domain of security profiling rather than customs enforcement at that stage. 7. The allegation that CISF conducted 'seizure' is also not borne out from record. The consistent stand of Respondents is that CISF only intercepted and secured the goods and thereafter, handed over petitioner, receiver and goods first to local police at about 08:30 hours and subsequently to Customs authorities at about 17:20 to 17:25 hours on 13.11.2025. This sequence is supported by the letters placed on record by Respondent No. 2 as Annexures 2 and 3 and is further corroborated by the counter filed by the 3rd respondent. The actual seizure, as recorded, was effected only by the Customs authorities after following due procedure under the 1962 Act by drawing Panchanama dated 13/14.11.2025 in the presence of independent witnesses and issuing summons under Section 108 at 06:00 hours on 14.11.2025. 8. Petitioner contends that safeguards under Sections 100 to 110 of the Customs Act were not followed is sp....