W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 1 of 16

$~

* 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. DLHC010874872025

+ W.P.(C) 16994/2025

NAJIR .....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: Mr. Vishal Chadha, Senior

Standing Counsel with Mr.

Chandan Kumar, 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 issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition

is whether the Petitioner is entitled to unconditional release of three

gold bars, collectively weighing 93 grams, detained/seized by the

Customs Authorities on 20.01.2024, on the ground that no show-cause

notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 [„Act‟] was issued

within the period contemplated under Section 110(2) of the Act.

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 2 of 16

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

three gold bars, collectively weighing 93 grams, which were

detained/seized by the Customs Authorities at the Indira Gandhi

International Airport, New Delhi, vide Detention Receipt No.

DR/INDEL4/20-01-2024/003576 dated 20.01.2024. The principal

contention of the Petitioner is that the continued detention of the said

gold bars is impermissible in law as, according to him, no show-cause

notice under Section 124 of the Act was issued within the statutory

period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act.

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 citizen holding Indian Passport No.

U5433321, had travelled to Saudi Arabia on 30.10.2023 for

performing Umrah. Upon his return to India on 20.01.2024 by Flight

No. EY-224 from Abu Dhabi to New Delhi, three yellow-metal bars,

each bearing the marking “1 Ounce Fine Gold 999.9” and collectively

weighing 93 grams, were recovered from his possession at the Indira

Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. The Detention Receipt dated

20.01.2024 records the reason for detention/seizure as “Green Channel

violation” and describes the goods as three gold bars weighing 93

grams. The receipt further records that the articles were

detained/seized in the presence of the Petitioner.

5. On the same date, i.e. 20.01.2024, a statement of the Petitioner

was recorded under Section 108 of the Act before the Air Customs

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 3 of 16

Superintendent. In the said statement, the Petitioner is recorded to

have stated that he was intercepted by the Customs Officer after

crossing the Green Channel and that, during DFMD, a beep sound was

heard, pursuant to which three yellow-metal bars, bearing the marking

“1 Ounce Fine Gold 999.9” and collectively weighing approximately

93 grams, were recovered from him. The statement further records

that the said gold bars had been concealed in the belt worn by the

Petitioner and that the same belonged to him. The Petitioner is also

recorded to have admitted the “omission and commission” on his part,

stated that he was aware that Customs duty was payable on the value

exceeding the baggage allowance, and admitted that he had

intentionally not declared the said goods.

6. The said statement further records that the Petitioner agreed to

the description, quantity and value of the goods as assessed by the

Department and expressed his willingness to pay the Customs duty,

fine and penalty, as applicable. Significantly, the statement contains

the following recital:

“I also do not need any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing in the

matter.”

The statement concludes with a recital that the Petitioner had tendered

the same as true and correct, had understood it in vernacular and had

tendered the statement without any duress, pressure or threat.

7. The Petitioner was issued Detention Receipt No .

DR/INDEL4/20-01-2024/003576 dated 20.01.2024 in respect of the

aforesaid goods. The Detention Receipt describes the detained/seized

package as containing one transparent cut-plastic bottle containing

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 4 of 16

three yellow-metal bars, each bearing the marking “1 Ounce Fine

Gold 999.9”, and records the quantity as 93 grams. The reason for

detention/seizure is recorded as “Green Channel violation”.

8. The Detention Receipt bears the signatures of the Customs

Officer as well as the passenger. It also records, inter alia, that the

articles had been detained at the request of the passenger and sealed in

his presence over his signature. The receipt requires the passenger to

produce the original receipt and his passport at the time of seeking

delivery of the goods. It further states that if the goods were not

cleared within two months of detention, or within such period as may

be extended by the competent authority, action for disposal of the

goods under the relevant provisions of the Act would be initiated.

9. The record placed before the Court does not disclose any

written show-cause notice issued to the Petitioner in respect of the

aforesaid goods. The Respondent, however, has placed on record a

chart setting out the particulars of the proceedings undertaken in the

matter. In the said chart, the Respondent has recorded 20.01.2024 as

the date of the oral show-cause notice. The chart also records that the

Petitioner had tendered the statement under Section 108 of the Act and

had stated therein that he did not require a show-cause notice or

personal hearing. The record further reflects that the goods have not

been appraised. The Respondent has stated that the Petitioner did not

appear before the Department for appraisement of the detained goods.

10. The Petitioner thereafter instituted the present Petition seeking,

inter alia, release of the three gold bars weighing 93 grams.

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 5 of 16

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

11. Contentions on behalf of the Petitioner

11.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the continued

detention of the three gold bars is contrary to Sections 110(2) and 124

of the Act, as admittedly no written show-cause notice was issued

within the statutory period of six months, or the extended period of

one year. It was contended that, upon expiry of the period prescribed

under Section 110(2), the seizure ceases to have legal efficacy and the

goods are liable to be released unconditionally.

11.2. It was further submitted that the Respondent cannot overcome

the aforesaid statutory consequence by relying upon the statement

allegedly recorded under Section 108 of the Act, wherein the

Petitioner is stated to have waived issuance of a show-cause notice

and personal hearing. According to learned counsel, the said

document cannot constitute a valid statement under Section 108, as it

was a pre-typed document allegedly obtained from the Petitioner at

the airport and was not voluntarily tendered by him. It was contended

that the Petitioner was made to sign documents without their contents

being explained to him and was also compelled to sign blank papers.

Reliance was placed upon the allegations made in the Petition

regarding coercion and upon the CCTV footage, which, according to

the Petitioner, would demonstrate the circumstances in which the

document was signed.

11.3. It was further submitted that, in any event, there can be no

waiver of the statutory requirement of issuance of a show-cause notice

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 6 of 16

under Section 124. The first proviso to Section 124, according to the

Petitioner, permits the notice and the representation to be oral only at

the request of the person concerned; it does not dispense with the

requirement of a notice itself. It was therefore contended that a mere

recital in the alleged statement that the Petitioner did not require a

show-cause notice cannot amount to either a valid waiver or an oral

show-cause notice. Even assuming that an oral show-cause notice was

permissible, the Respondent was required to communicate the grounds

on which confiscation and penalty were proposed and afford the

Petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

11.4. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of this Court and the

Supreme Court, including Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja Civil Appeal

No.3489/2024, decided on 11.09.2025, and Shubhangi Gupta v.

Commissioner of Customs & Ors., W.P.(C.) 10772/2024, to contend

that the statutory requirements under Sections 110(2) and 124 cannot

be circumvented by treating the requirement of issuance of a show-

cause notice as having been waived. It was submitted that once the

statutory period expires without a valid show-cause notice, the seizure

stands dissolved and the goods cannot thereafter be retained for the

purpose of confiscation. The Petitioner accordingly seeks

unconditional release of the gold bars.

11.5. It was lastly contended that the Respondent cannot seek to

justify continued detention by directing the Petitioner to participate in

a future adjudication or by offering provisional release. According to

learned counsel, once the statutory consequence under Section 110(2)

has ensued, there is no question of reviving the seizure through

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 7 of 16

subsequent proceedings.

12. Contentions on behalf of the Respondent

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

the Petition is misconceived, as the Petitioner was intercepted after

crossing the Green Channel and the three gold bars were recovered

from his person. The Petitioner thereafter voluntarily tendered his

statement under Section 108 of the Act, wherein he admitted

concealment and intentional non-declaration of the gold bars and

expressly stated that he did not require a show-cause notice or

personal hearing.

12.2. It was submitted that the aforesaid statement has never been

retracted and the allegations of coercion and procedural irregularity

have been raised for the first time in the present proceedings. It was

therefore contended that the Petitioner, having voluntarily admitted

the Green Channel violation and waived the requirement of notice and

personal hearing, cannot subsequently seek unconditional release of

the goods on the ground of non-issuance of a written show-cause

notice.

12.3. It was further submitted that the Petitioner was required to

approach the Customs Authorities for appraisement and clearance of

the detained goods, but admittedly did not do so. It was contended that

the Petitioner cannot take advantage of his own failure to participate

in the proceedings. It was also submitted that 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-

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 8 of 16

bound period.

12.4. Reliance was also placed upon the Baggage Rules, 2016 and the

applicable customs notifications to contend that the gold bars in

question did not constitute duty-free baggage merely because they

were carried by the Petitioner. It was submitted that the manner in

which the gold was brought into the country, coupled with its

concealment and non-declaration after crossing the Green Channel,

warranted its detention/seizure.

12.5. It was accordingly contended that the present Petition involves

disputed questions concerning the circumstances of recovery,

declaration, concealment and the voluntariness of the statement under

Section 108, which ought not to be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

The Respondent therefore seeks dismissal of the Petition, while

submitting, in the alternative, that the Petitioner may be directed to

participate in the adjudication proceedings and the matter be decided

expeditiously.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced

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

14. The undisputed position is that the Petitioner arrived at the

Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 20.01.2024 from

Abu Dhabi and that three gold bars, collectively weighing 93 grams,

were recovered from his possession after he had crossed the Green

Channel. The Detention Receipt dated 20.01.2024 records the reason

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 9 of 16

for detention/seizure as “Green Channel violation”. The Petitioner

also admittedly signed the said Detention Receipt.

15. It is also not in dispute that no separate written show-cause

notice under Section 124 of the Act was issued to the Petitioner. The

Respondent, however, has placed on record a chart of the proceedings

undertaken in the matter, wherein 20.01.2024 has been recorded as the

date of the oral show-cause notice. The Respondent has also relied

upon the statement of the Petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the

Act on the same date.

16. The said statement records that the Petitioner was intercepted

after crossing the Green Channel and that three yellow-metal bars

were recovered from him, which, according to the statement, had been

concealed in the belt worn by him. The Petitioner is further recorded

to have admitted that he had intentionally not declared the goods and

that he was aware of the Customs duty payable thereon. He is also

recorded to have agreed to the description, quantity and value of the

goods as assessed by the Department and to have expressed his

willingness to pay Customs duty, fine and penalty, as applicable.

17. More importantly, the statement contains the following recital:

“I also do not need any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing in the

matter.”

The statement further records that the Petitioner had understood the

same in vernacular and had tendered it without any duress, pressure or

threat.

18. The Petitioner has, however, disputed the voluntariness and

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 10 of 16

evidentiary value of the aforesaid statement. In the Petition, he has

alleged that certain pre-typed documents were made to be signed by

him and that he was also compelled to sign blank papers. He has

further relied upon CCTV footage to contend that the circumstances in

which the documents were signed would demonstrate the falsity of the

Department‟s case.

19. These allegations raise disputed questions of fact which cannot

appropriately be adjudicated in the present writ proceedings. This

Court, exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution, is not required to determine at this stage whether the

Petitioner had in fact declared the gold bars, whether the gold bars

were concealed in the manner recorded in the statement, whether the

statement dated 20.01.2024 was voluntarily tendered, or what

evidentiary value is ultimately to be attached to the said statement.

These questions are appropriately to be considered by the competent

adjudicating authority.

20. The principal submission of the Petitioner is that, in the absence

of a written show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Act within the

period prescribed under Section 110(2), the seizure stood dissolved

and the goods are consequently liable to be released unconditionally.

The Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Jatin Ahuja (supra).

21. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the statutory

period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act has to be complied

with and that the consequences contemplated by the said provision

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 11 of 16

cannot be defeated by the Customs authorities by adopting a

procedure not sanctioned by law.

22. However, the controversy in the present case cannot be

determined merely by noticing that no separate written show-cause

notice was issued. Section 124 of the Act itself contemplates that the

notice referred to in clause (a), as also the representation referred to in

clause (b), may, at the request of the person concerned, be oral. The

Respondent‟s specific case before this Court is that the Petitioner was

dealt with on 20.01.2024 itself and that the proceedings undertaken on

that date included an oral show-cause notice. The proceedings chart

placed on record by the Respondent specifically records 20.01.2024 as

the date of the oral show-cause notice.

23. Thus, the question which arises is not merely whether a formal

written show-cause notice was issued, but whether the proceedings

undertaken on 20.01.2024 constituted compliance with the

requirements of Section 124 of the Act and, in particular, whether the

Petitioner was informed of the grounds on which confiscation of the

goods and/or imposition of penalty was proposed and was afforded the

opportunity contemplated by the statutory scheme.

24. In this regard, the decision of this Court in Shubhangi Gupta

(supra) relied upon by the Petitioner, does not warrant a different

conclusion at this stage. In the said case, the Revenue had not asserted

that an oral show-cause notice had actually been issued to the

petitioner. The present case stands on a different factual footing, since

the Respondent has specifically placed on record a proceedings chart

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 12 of 16

recording the date of the oral show-cause notice as 20.01.2024 and has

relied upon the contemporaneous statement of the Petitioner recorded

on the same date.

25. At the same time, the recital in the statement that the Petitioner

did not require a show-cause notice or personal hearing cannot, by

itself, be treated as conclusive proof of compliance with Section 124.

The statutory requirements have to be satisfied in accordance with

law. However, whether an oral show-cause notice was in fact given to

the Petitioner, what was communicated to him in the course thereof,

and whether the proceedings undertaken on 20.01.2024 constituted

sufficient compliance with Section 124, are matters which require

examination of the contemporaneous record and the circumstances in

which the statement came to be recorded.

26. This Court would also not be justified in determining, in the

present proceedings, the Petitioner‟s allegation that the statement was

obtained by coercion or that he was made to sign pre-typed or blank

documents. These allegations are disputed by the Respondent and

would require appreciation of evidence, including the circumstances

in which the statement was recorded and the CCTV footage relied

upon by the Petitioner. Such an exercise is appropriately undertaken

by the competent adjudicating authority.

27. The Detention Receipt dated 20.01.2024 also records that the

goods had been detained at the request of the passenger and sealed in

his presence over his signature. It further required the passenger to

approach the Department for clearance of the goods and stipulated

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 13 of 16

that, if the goods were not cleared within two months or within such

extended period as may be granted by the competent authority, action

for disposal under the relevant provisions of the Act would be

initiated. The Respondent states that the Petitioner did not thereafter

appear before the Department for appraisement of the goods.

28. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present

case ought not to be decided solely on the basis of the absence of a

written show-cause notice, particularly when the Respondent has

specifically asserted that an oral show-cause notice was issued on

20.01.2024 and the contemporaneous record contains the Petitioner‟s

statement regarding the goods and the alleged violation. The effect of

these proceedings and their compliance with Section 124 are matters

which should first be considered by the competent adjudicating

authority.

29. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Jatin Ahuja (supra)

does not require this Court to direct unconditional release of the goods

without first determining whether the statutory requirement of notice

stood satisfied in the facts of the present case. The ratio of the said

judgment applies where the statutory requirement has not been

complied with within the prescribed period. The question whether

there was such compliance in the present case cannot be conclusively

determined merely from the absence of a written notice, particularly in

view of the Respondent‟s specific case regarding the oral show-cause

notice dated 20.01.2024.

30. The Respondent has also stated before this Court that it is ready

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 14 of 16

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. The Petitioner would, therefore, have an adequate

opportunity before the competent authority to place on record his

version regarding declaration of the gold, the circumstances of its

recovery, the statement dated 20.01.2024, the alleged coercion and the

CCTV footage relied upon by him.

31. At the same time, the Department cannot be permitted to keep

the detained goods and the proceedings pending indefinitely. Since the

Respondent has expressed its readiness to undertake the adjudication,

the said process must now be completed within a definite time.

32. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground, at this stage, to direct

unconditional release of the three gold bars merely on the ground that

no separate written show-cause notice was issued. The Petitioner

shall, however, be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before

the competent adjudicating authority and shall be at liberty to place on

record his explanation and all material on which he seeks to rely.

33. The competent authority shall thereafter adjudicate the matter

strictly in accordance with law and expeditiously. It shall examine,

inter alia, the question whether the proceedings undertaken on

20.01.2024 constituted compliance with Section 124 of the Act,

including the Respondent‟s assertion regarding the oral show-cause

notice, as well as the Petitioner‟s objections regarding the

voluntariness of his statement.

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

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 15 of 16

whether the Petitioner had declared the gold bars, whether the goods

were liable to confiscation, whether the Petitioner was eligible to

import the same, whether the statement dated 20.01.2024 was

voluntarily tendered, or whether the proceedings undertaken on that

date constituted sufficient compliance with Section 124 of the Act. All

such questions are left open for consideration by the competent

authority in accordance with law.

CONCLUSION

35. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground to

exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for directing unconditional

release of the detained gold bars at this stage. The Writ Petition is,

accordingly, disposed of.

36. However, the Respondent shall afford the Petitioner an

opportunity of personal hearing before the competent adjudicating

authority and shall thereafter adjudicate the matter in accordance with

law, as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of

four (04) weeks from the date on which the Petitioner appears before

the competent authority pursuant to notice issued by the Respondent.

37. The Petitioner shall appear before the competent authority on

such date as may be communicated to him by the Respondent and

shall be at liberty to produce all documents and material on which he

seeks to rely, including the material concerning the circumstances in

which his statement dated 20.01.2024 was recorded.

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

W.P.(C) 16994/2025 Page 16 of 16

be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the

allegations against the Petitioner or on the question of confiscation,

duty, fine or penalty. The competent authority shall take a decision

strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the material placed

before it.

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.

SEPTEMBER 02, 2026

sp/pal