W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 1 of 15

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 19.08.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 02.09.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 02.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010913852025

+ W.P.(C) 17561/2025

FAHIM AHMAD .....Petitioner

Through: Dr. Ashutosh, Ms. Fatima, Mr.

Rohit Swarup, Mr. Dalip Singh,

Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh, Mr.

Pravej Hasan, Mr. Abhijeet

Sagar, Mr. S.Vijaykanth, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with

Mr. Apurv Yadav and Mr.

Naman Choula, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.:

1. The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present

Petition is whether the absolute confiscation of the gold bar belonging

to the Petitioner, and the consequential penalty imposed upon him, can

be sustained in the absence of a written Show Cause Notice under

Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 [„the Act‟], where the

Respondent relies upon the Petitioner‟s alleged statement under

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 2 of 15

Section 108 of the said Act and the subsequent communication dated

07.06.2024 to contend that the requirement of a Show Cause Notice

and personal hearing was waived and that an oral Show Cause Notice

had been issued.

2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of

the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner of

Customs (Appeals), whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner

against the Order-in-Original dated 20.08.2024 was dismissed. The

Petitioner further seeks release of the gold bar weighing 116 grams,

which was detained/seized by the Customs authorities on 02.06.2024,

as also waiver of the detention/warehouse charges, if any.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present

Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4. The Petitioner, an Indian national, arrived at the Indira Gandhi

International Airport, New Delhi, from Bahrain on 02.06.2024. Upon

interception by the Customs authorities after he had crossed the Green

Channel, one gold bar, engraved with the marking “NAIF”, weighing

116 grams and stated to be of 999 purity, was recovered from him.

The said gold bar was detained by the Customs authorities vide

Detention Receipt No. 4546 dated 02.06.2024. The Detention Receipt

records, inter alia, that the gold bar was repacked in a cut plastic

bottle, sealed with Customs tape and pliers in the presence of the

passenger, and that the goods had been detained at the request of the

passenger and sealed in his presence over his signature.

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 3 of 15

5. On the same date, i.e. 02.06.2024, the Customs authorities

recorded a statement purportedly under Section 108 of the Act. In the

said statement, the Petitioner is stated to have initially disowned the

gold bar by stating that the same did not belong to him. The

Respondent relies upon the said statement to contend that the

Petitioner was acting as a carrier of the gold and that the statement

was voluntarily tendered by him. The Respondent further relies upon

the statement for its contention that the Petitioner did not require

issuance of a Show Cause Notice or grant of a personal hearing.

6. The gold bar was thereafter appraised on 07.06.2024. The

Respondent states that the appraisement was carried out in the

presence of the Petitioner and that the gold bar was found to bear

foreign markings and to be of 999 purity. The Respondent further

relies upon a letter dated 07.06.2024 stated to have been submitted

through the Petitioner‟s Authorised Representative, whereby

ownership of the gold bar was claimed and it was again stated that the

Petitioner did not desire issuance of a Show Cause Notice or grant of a

personal hearing.

7. According to the Respondent, an oral Show Cause Notice was

issued to the Petitioner on 02.06.2024 in terms of the first proviso to

Section 124 of the Act. The Respondent, therefore, contends that the

statutory requirement preceding confiscation stood duly complied

with.

8. The adjudicating authority thereafter passed the Order-in-

Original dated 20.08.2024, whereby the gold bar weighing 116 grams

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 4 of 15

was absolutely confiscated and a penalty of Rs.1,15,000/- was

imposed upon the Petitioner under Sections 112 and 114 of the Act.

9. The Petitioner initially approached this Court by way of

W.P.(C) 6696/2025 challenging the said Order-in-Original, principally

on the ground that no Show Cause Notice had been issued to him. On

21.05.2025, this Court, taking note of the rival submissions, permitted

the Petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section

128 of the Act. The Petitioner was permitted to file the appeal on or

before 10.07.2025 and it was directed that the appeal be considered on

merits without being dismissed on limitation. The Commissioner

(Appeals) was also directed to afford a personal hearing to the

Petitioner and pass an order within the stipulated period.

10. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner preferred an appeal against the

Order-in-Original. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), vide

Order-in-Appeal dated 27.08.2025, dismissed the appeal and upheld

the action taken by the adjudicating authority.

11. The Petitioner thereafter filed the present Petition challenging

the Order-in-Appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

12. Contentions on behalf of the Petitioner

12.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that admittedly no

written Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner before the

Order-in-Original dated 20.08.2024 came to be passed. It was

submitted that the requirement contained in Section 124 of the Act is

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 5 of 15

mandatory and cannot be dispensed with merely on the basis of a

purported statement attributed to the Petitioner.

12.2. It was submitted that the document dated 02.06.2024 relied

upon by the Respondent as a statement under Section 108 of the Act is

not, in law, a valid statement recorded under the said provision. It was

submitted that the Petitioner was not issued any summons under

Section 108 and that the document relied upon by the Department

merely contains the recital, “I also don't need any SCN or PH in the

matter”. According to learned counsel, the same cannot constitute

either a valid waiver of the statutory requirement of a Show Cause

Notice or a request for an oral Show Cause Notice within the meaning

of the first proviso to Section 124 of the Act.

12.3. It was further submitted that the Petitioner has specifically

alleged that documents had been prepared beforehand and that he was

made to sign them without the contents thereof being properly

explained to him. It was contended that the allegation of coercion and

the circumstances in which the document was signed cannot be

brushed aside merely on the ground that there was no

contemporaneous retraction.

12.4. It was further submitted that even assuming that the document

dated 02.06.2024 is treated as a statement under Section 108 of the

Act, it cannot amount to a valid request for an oral Show Cause

Notice. According to him, the first proviso to Section 124 specifically

contemplates that the notice may be oral at the request of the person

concerned, and consequently a specific request for an oral notice must

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 6 of 15

precede the acceptance thereof by the Department.

12.5. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal

No.3489/2024, decided on 11.09.2025, to contend that the statutory

scheme relating to Sections 110 and 124 of the Act has to be strictly

complied with. The Supreme Court, while considering the

consequence of non-issuance of a notice under Section 124 within the

period contemplated by Section 110(2), reiterated the mandatory

nature of the statutory consequence flowing from Section 110(2).

12.6. It was further submitted that there can be no waiver of the

statutory requirement of a Show Cause Notice and placed reliance

upon the judgment of this Court in Shubhangi Gupta v.

Commissioner of Customs. It was also contended that the Baggage

Rules, being subordinate legislation, cannot override the mandatory

safeguards contained in the parent statute.

12.7. It is lastly submitted that the availability of an alternative

remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly where there is an alleged

violation of principles of natural justice and the action is alleged to be

without jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the

judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The

Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors., Civil

Appeal No.5393/2010, decided on 01.02.2023.

13. Contentions on behalf of the Respondent

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 7 of 15

13.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that

the present Petition ought not to be entertained in view of the

efficacious statutory remedy available to the Petitioner under the Act.

It was submitted that, against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.08.2025,

the Petitioner has a remedy of revision before the Central Government

under Section 129DD of the Act, the Impugned Order being one

relating to goods imported as baggage. It was, therefore, contended

that the Petitioner cannot bypass the statutory remedy and invoke the

writ jurisdiction of this Court merely because the decision of the

Commissioner (Appeals) has gone against him.

13.2. It was submitted that the Petitioner was intercepted after he had

crossed the Green Channel and the gold bar was recovered from his

possession. It was contended that there was no voluntary declaration

of the gold before the Customs authorities and that the circumstances

in which the gold was recovered constituted a Green Channel

violation. It was further submitted that the Petitioner, in his statement

dated 02.06.2024 recorded under Section 108 of the Act, expressly

stated that he did not require issuance of a Show Cause Notice or a

personal hearing. It was submitted that the said statement was

voluntary and was never retracted by the Petitioner before any

competent authority.

13.3. It was further submitted that, at the stage of appraisement on

07.06.2024, the Petitioner, through his Authorised Representative,

again communicated that he did not require issuance of a Show Cause

Notice or personal hearing. According to the Respondent, the

Petitioner therefore consciously elected to dispense with the written

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 8 of 15

Show Cause Notice and personal hearing.

13.4. It was submitted that the Respondent‟s case is not merely

founded upon a purported waiver of the Show Cause Notice. It is also

the case of the Department that an oral Show Cause Notice was issued

in terms of the first proviso to Section 124 of the Act. The Respondent

has accordingly shown the date of the oral Show Cause Notice as

02.06.2024 in the chart placed before the Court.

13.5. It was further submitted that the Petitioner had initially

disowned the gold bar in his statement dated 02.06.2024, which,

according to the Respondent, indicated that he was acting as a carrier

and not as the owner of the gold. It was contended that no document

evidencing licit possession or acquisition of the gold had been

produced by the Petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the

Order-in-Original as well as the Order-in-Appeal have returned

concurrent findings against the Petitioner.

13.6. It was submitted that the questions sought to be raised by the

Petitioner, including the circumstances in which the statement dated

02.06.2024 was recorded, whether the Petitioner had voluntarily

sought waiver of the written Show Cause Notice and personal hearing,

whether an oral Show Cause Notice was in fact issued, and whether

the documents relied upon by the Respondent were voluntarily

executed, involve disputed questions of fact which ought not to be

examined in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution.

13.7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 9 of 15

Respondent has also stated that, without prejudice to the stand taken in

the Impugned Orders, the Department is ready and willing to afford

the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and to adjudicate the

matter in accordance with law within a time-bound period.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

14. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced

on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.

15. At the outset, it is necessary to notice that the present Petition

arises after the Petitioner has already availed the statutory appellate

remedy against the Order-in-Original dated 20.08.2024. The

Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the appeal and passed the

Order-in-Appeal dated 27.08.2025, which is the order impugned in the

present proceedings.

16. The Customs Act itself provides a further statutory remedy in

respect of an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to goods

imported or exported as baggage. Section 129A(1) of the Act excludes

from the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal an appeal against an

order of the Commissioner (Appeals) where such order relates, inter

alia, to goods imported or exported as baggage. Section 129DD,

correspondingly, provides for revision by the Central Government

against an order of the nature referred to in the first proviso to Section

129A(1). The Department of Revenue also identifies revision

applications under Section 129DD in matters concerning goods

imported or exported as baggage.

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 10 of 15

17. Thus, the contention of the Respondent that a statutory remedy

is available to the Petitioner is well founded. However, the mere

existence of an alternative remedy does not, by itself, completely

denude this Court of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution. The Court may, in an appropriate case, exercise its writ

jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy,

particularly where the proceedings are alleged to have been conducted

in breach of principles of natural justice or without jurisdiction.

18. The question, therefore, is whether the present case is one in

which this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction

notwithstanding the statutory remedy available to the Petitioner.

19. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that no Show Cause

Notice under Section 124 of the Act was issued before the gold bar

was confiscated and penalty was imposed. The Respondent, however,

does not accept that the statutory requirement was altogether

dispensed with. The specific stand of the Respondent is that the

Petitioner had stated on 02.06.2024 that he did not require a Show

Cause Notice or personal hearing; that the Petitioner reiterated the

same position through his Authorised Representative on 07.06.2024;

and, importantly, that an oral Show Cause Notice was issued on

02.06.2024 in terms of the first proviso to Section 124 of the Act.

20. The controversy thus cannot be resolved merely by noticing that

no written Show Cause Notice was issued. The first proviso to Section

124 itself contemplates, at the request of the person concerned, an oral

notice in lieu of a written notice. Consequently, the precise question

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 11 of 15

arising in the present case would require examination of the

documents and circumstances surrounding the alleged statement dated

02.06.2024, the alleged request concerning the Show Cause Notice

and personal hearing, the alleged oral notice, and the subsequent

communication dated 07.06.2024.

21. The Petitioner disputes the very nature and character of the

document dated 02.06.2024. According to him, the document is not a

valid statement under Section 108 of the Act and was prepared and

signed in circumstances which did not permit the Petitioner to

understand its contents. The Petitioner has also alleged coercion and

has disputed the voluntariness of the document. The Respondent, on

the other hand, asserts that the statement was voluntarily tendered and

was never retracted.

22. Similarly, the Petitioner disputes that the recital that he did not

require a Show Cause Notice amounted to a request for an oral Show

Cause Notice under the first proviso to Section 124. The Respondent

takes a contrary position and additionally asserts that an oral Show

Cause Notice was actually issued on 02.06.2024.

23. These competing assertions assume significance because the

relief sought by the Petitioner would require this Court, in exercise of

its writ jurisdiction, to examine the factual circumstances in which the

documents were executed and to determine the effect thereof. In

particular, it would require an examination of whether the Petitioner

voluntarily made the statement attributed to him, whether the alleged

request was in fact made, what was communicated to him orally by

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 12 of 15

the Customs authorities, and whether the subsequent communication

dated 07.06.2024 constituted a conscious and informed relinquishment

of the procedural safeguards claimed by him.

24. This Court is of the view that these disputed questions ought not

to be conclusively adjudicated in the present proceedings under

Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when the statute provides

a specific revisionary remedy against the Order-in-Appeal.

25. The reliance placed by the Petitioner upon Godrej Sara (supra)

does not advance his case to the extent contended. The said decision

recognises that the rule concerning availability of an alternative

remedy is a rule of discretion and not one which completely bars

exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, the question whether such

discretion should be exercised depends upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. The present case is distinguishable from a

case where the relevant facts are admitted and the controversy is

confined to a pure question of law.

26. In the present case, there is a direct dispute as to what transpired

between the Petitioner and the Customs authorities on 02.06.2024 and

thereafter on 07.06.2024. The Respondent has placed reliance upon

contemporaneous documents, while the Petitioner disputes their

character, voluntariness and legal effect. These matters can

appropriately be considered in the statutory proceedings, where the

entire record can be examined and the parties can place their

respective versions before the competent authority.

27. This Court is also conscious of the judgment of the Supreme

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 13 of 15

Court in Jatin Ahuja (supra). The said decision arose from

proceedings concerning the statutory consequences flowing from

Section 110(2) of the Act in the absence of a notice under Section 124

within the prescribed period. The Supreme Court disposed of the

batch of appeals on 11.09.2025.

28. The question whether the principles emerging from the said

decision are attracted to the facts of the present case, and, if so, their

precise application to the alleged oral Show Cause Notice and the

documents relied upon by the Respondent, can also be raised before

the statutory revisional authority. We, therefore, do not consider it

appropriate to express any final opinion on the merits of the

Petitioner‟s challenge to the confiscation or on the validity or

otherwise of the alleged oral Show Cause Notice.

29. There is another circumstance which persuades this Court not to

undertake an adjudication of these disputed issues in the present

proceedings. The Respondent, during the course of hearing, has fairly

stated that the Department is willing to afford the Petitioner an

opportunity of personal hearing and to reconsider the matter in

accordance with law within a time-bound period. This statement is

taken on record.

30. The aforesaid statement, however, cannot be understood as

permitting the Respondent to sustain the confiscation merely on the

basis of the alleged waiver or to dispense with any statutory

requirement which is otherwise applicable. The competent authority,

while undertaking the proceedings pursuant to the liberty granted by

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 14 of 15

this Court, shall consider all the contentions available to the Petitioner

in accordance with law, including the contention regarding Section

124 of the Act, the alleged absence of a Show Cause Notice, the

alleged oral Show Cause Notice, the legal effect of the statement dated

02.06.2024 and the communication dated 07.06.2024, as also the

effect, if any, of the judgment in Jatin Ahuja (supra).

31. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the allegations of Green Channel violation, the

ownership of the gold bar, the Petitioner's initial statement regarding

the gold, the validity or evidentiary value of the statement dated

02.06.2024, or the justification for absolute confiscation and

imposition of penalty. All such issues are left open.

32. The present Petition has been filed after the Petitioner has

already availed the appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Act and

after the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the Order-in-Appeal

dated 27.08.2025. The further statutory remedy available under

Section 129DD is therefore the appropriate forum for examination of

the disputed factual and legal issues arising from the impugned Order-

in-Appeal. The statutory scheme specifically recognises revision

before the Central Government in matters concerning goods imported

or exported as baggage.

33. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of

the Petitioner‟s challenge, this Court is not inclined to entertain the

present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 Page 15 of 15

34. The present Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with liberty to

the Petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of revision under Section

129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Order-in-Appeal dated

27.08.2025, in accordance with law.

35. If the Petitioner avails the aforesaid remedy within a period of

four (04) weeks from today, the Revisional Authority shall consider

the same in accordance with law and shall not reject the same merely

on the ground that the Petitioner had approached this Court by way of

the present Petition.

36. It is clarified that the dismissal of the present Petition shall not

be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on any of the

rival contentions of the parties. All questions, including the

Petitioner‟s contention regarding non-issuance of a Show Cause

Notice under Section 124 of the Act, the alleged oral Show Cause

Notice, the validity and voluntariness of the statement dated

02.06.2024, the communication dated 07.06.2024, and the legality of

the confiscation and penalty, are left open to be considered by the

competent authority in accordance with law.

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.

SEPTEMBER 02, 2026

sp/pal