W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 1 of 18

$~

* 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. DLHC010059042026

+ W.P.(C) 2255/2026

MOHAMMAD SADIQ .....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.

# CNR No. DLHC010012042026

+ W.P.(C) 666/2026

ULUGBEK ZOKIROV .....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. Since the present two Petitions raise substantially similar

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 2 of 18

questions concerning the continued detention of gold/gold jewellery

by the Customs Department and the effect of the alleged non-issuance

of a Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962

[the „Act‟] within the period contemplated under Section 110(2)

thereof, they are being taken up together and are being disposed of by

this common judgment.

2. Through the present Petitions, the Petitioner(s) seeks release of

the respective gold items, as also a direction that no detention or

warehouse charges be recovered from him at the time of release of the

said gold.

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. In W.P.(C) 2255/2026, the Petitioner is an Indian citizen. He

arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on

25.02.2022 by Flight No. XY-329 from Saudi Arabia. Three yellow-

metal bars, collectively weighing 253.2 grams, were found in his

possession. A Detention Receipt bearing No. 51478 dated 25.02.2022

was issued in respect thereof. A subsequent Detention Receipt bearing

No. 40698 also refers to the aforesaid three gold bars.

5. The record placed before this Court contains a document

described by the Respondent as the statement of the Petitioner

recorded under Section 108 of the Act on 25.02.2022. The said

document records that the Petitioner had crossed the Green Channel

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 3 of 18

without declaring the gold bars, was aware of the requirement of

payment of Customs duty on goods exceeding the permissible

baggage allowance and had intentionally not declared the goods. The

document further records that the goods did not belong to the

Petitioner and that he admitted his omission and commission.

6. The aforesaid document further records that the Petitioner did

not desire a Show Cause Notice and that the matter could be decided

without a personal hearing. It also records that the statement was

tendered voluntarily, without duress, pressure or threat, and after

being read and understood by the Petitioner in vernacular.

7. The Respondent also relies upon a communication dated

25.04.2022 submitted on behalf of the Petitioner through his

authorised representative. According to the Respondent, the said

communication sought release of the gold and stated that the

Petitioner was willing to pay the Customs duty, redemption fine and

penalty as may be imposed. The Respondent further states that the

said communication reiterated that the Petitioner did not desire a

written Show Cause Notice or personal hearing.

8. In W.P.(C) 666/2026, the Petitioner is a national of Uzbekistan.

He arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on

24.02.2024 by Flight No. HY-423 from Uzbekistan. A Detention

Receipt bearing No. DR/INDEL4/24-02-2024/003866 dated

24.02.2024 was issued in respect of one plastic box containing

assorted jewellery, weighing 230 grams and appearing to be made of

gold. The reason recorded for detention/seizure was “Green Channel

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 4 of 18

Violation”.

9. The Detention Receipt records the Petitioner‟s name,

nationality and passport particulars and contains the Petitioner's

signature against the endorsement that the articles listed therein were

correct and had been detained at his request and sealed in his presence

over his signature. The receipt further records that the passenger was

required to produce the receipt and passport for seeking delivery of

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

such extended period as may be permitted by the competent authority,

action for disposal under the relevant provisions of the Act would be

initiated.

10. The record in the said Petition also contains a document dated

24.02.2024 described as the statement of the Petitioner under Section

108 of the Act. The statement records that the Petitioner had been

intercepted after crossing the Green Channel and that, during X-ray

examination of his baggage and DFMD, the aforesaid jewellery was

recovered from him. It further records that the Petitioner stated that

the recovered items did not belong to him, admitted his omission and

commission, was aware that Customs duty was payable on import of

the goods and agreed with the description, quantity and value as

assessed by the Department.

11. The said statement further records that the Petitioner did not

require any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing and that the

statement had been tendered voluntarily, without duress, pressure or

threat, after being understood in vernacular.

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 5 of 18

12. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) 666/2026 disputes the circumstances

in which the aforesaid documents came to be signed. He asserts that

he knows only the Uzbek language, that there was an altercation with

the Customs officials regarding his eligibility to bring the jewellery

and the duty payable thereon, and that he was made to sign documents

which had already been prepared as well as certain blank papers,

without the assistance of a translator. He also relies upon CCTV

footage to contend that the Department's version regarding non-

declaration is incorrect.

13. In both Petitions, it is not disputed that the goods continue to

remain with the Customs Department and that no Order-in-Original

has been passed till date.

14. The Respondent has stated before this Court that the Petitioners

may appear before the competent adjudicating authority and that the

adjudication proceedings can be completed in a time-bound manner.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

15. Contentions of the Petitioner

15.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Section 110(2)

of the Act prescribes a mandatory period within which a notice

contemplated under Section 124(a) is required to be given in respect

of goods seized under Section 110(1). It was contended that, in both

cases, the goods have remained with the Department for a period far

exceeding six months and there is no material to establish that the

statutory period was extended in accordance with the first proviso to

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 6 of 18

Section 110(2).

15.2. Reliance was 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. It was submitted that Section 110(2) has

mandatory operation and that, upon expiry of the prescribed period

without the requisite notice, the seized goods are liable to be returned.

The Supreme Court has indeed held that where no notice under

Section 124(a) is given within the prescribed period, the consequence

contemplated by Section 110(2) is return of the seized goods.

15.3. It was further submitted that the Respondent cannot rely upon

the statements under Section 108 as a substitute for the statutory Show

Cause Notice. According to learned counsel, a mere recital that the

person concerned does not desire a Show Cause Notice cannot itself

establish that an oral Show Cause Notice was actually issued in terms

of the first proviso to Section 124.

15.4. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Ms.

Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., W.P.(C)

10772/2024, decided on 04.11.2024, wherein, in the facts of that case,

the Court held that in the absence of an oral or written Show Cause

Notice, the requirement of Section 124(a) could not be treated as

satisfied merely on the basis of a purported waiver.

15.5. Reliance was also placed upon Amit Kumar v. Commissioner

of Customs2025:DHC:751-DB, to contend that a printed waiver of

Show Cause Notice and personal hearing cannot, by itself, be treated

as an oral Show Cause Notice complying with Section 124 of the Act.

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 7 of 18

15.6. In the case of Mohammad Sadiq, it was further submitted that

the document relied upon by the Respondent is not in the Petitioner‟s

handwriting and that the Petitioner has specifically alleged that he was

made to sign documents which had already been prepared. It was also

submitted that the Respondent has not produced the CCTV footage

despite the same having been sought.

15.7. In the case of Ulugbek Zokirov, it was submitted that the

Petitioner did not know any language other than Uzbek and that there

is no material to demonstrate that the contents of the documents relied

upon by the Respondent were explained to him through a translator. It

was submitted that the alleged statement, therefore, cannot be treated

as a voluntary and informed waiver of statutory rights.

15.8. It was lastly submitted that the Petitioners had declared the

goods and were willing to pay the applicable Customs duty and that

the allegations of Green Channel violation and liability to confiscation

are themselves disputed questions which cannot justify continued

detention of the goods contrary to Section 110(2) of the Act.

16. Contentions of the Respondent

16.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent was submitted

that the Petitions are founded upon an incomplete narration of the

relevant facts. It was submitted that the Petitioners were intercepted

after crossing the Green Channel and that the goods were recovered

from their possession.

16.2. The Respondent relies upon the contemporaneous statements

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 8 of 18

recorded under Section 108 of the Act. In both cases, the respective

statements record that the Petitioners did not desire a Show Cause

Notice or personal hearing and that the matters could be decided

without such hearing.

16.3. In the case of Mohammad Sadiq, further reliance is placed upon

the communication dated 25.04.2022 submitted through the

Petitioner's authorised representative, which, according to the

Respondent, reiterated the Petitioner‟s position regarding the Show

Cause Notice and personal hearing.

16.4. It was submitted that the proceedings undertaken with the

Petitioners were treated by the Department as an oral Show Cause

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

According to the Respondent, the present challenge necessarily

requires examination of the circumstances in which the statements

were recorded, the conduct of the Petitioners at the time of

interception and the subsequent conduct of the Petitioners.

16.5. It was further submitted that the Petitioners‟ allegations of

coercion, use of pre-prepared documents, absence of proper

explanation and, in the case of Ulugbek Zokirov, absence of a

translator, are disputed questions of fact which cannot satisfactorily be

adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

16.6. The Respondent further submitted that the underlying

allegations concerning declaration of the goods, ownership thereof,

importability, liability to confiscation, duty and penalty are also

matters which require examination by the competent adjudicating

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 9 of 18

authority.

16.7. In the case of Mohammad Sadiq, the Respondent also relied

upon the Petitioner‟s delay of nearly four years in approaching this

Court. It was submitted that during this period the Petitioner neither

retracted the statement relied upon by the Department nor approached

the Customs authorities alleging coercion or procedural irregularity.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

17. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced

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

18. At the outset, it is necessary to notice the statutory scheme.

Section 110(2) of the Act provides that where goods are seized under

Section 110(1), and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause

(a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure, the goods shall be

returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. The

first proviso permits the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of

Customs, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to extend the period by

a further period not exceeding six months, subject to the person

concerned being informed before expiry of the prescribed period.

19. The Supreme Court in Jatin Ahuja (supra) has authoritatively

considered the consequence of failure to comply with Section 110(2).

The Supreme Court has held that the statutory period for issuance of

notice is mandatory and that, in the absence of notice within the

prescribed or validly extended period, the consequence contemplated

by Section 110(2) is return of the seized goods. The Supreme Court

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 10 of 18

has also clarified that the period for issuance of notice is prescribed by

Section 110(2), while Section 124 operates in a distinct field.

20. Thus, there can be no dispute with the proposition that the

Department cannot retain seized goods indefinitely merely because

adjudication has not been completed. Nor can the statutory period

prescribed by Section 110(2) be extended except in the manner

contemplated by the Act.

21. The controversy before us, however, does not end with a mere

assertion that a written Show Cause Notice is not available on record.

In both the present cases, the Respondent relies upon

contemporaneous documents recording the proceedings undertaken

with the respective Petitioners on the date of interception.

22. Section 124 of the Act requires, before an order of confiscation

or imposition of penalty is made, that the person concerned be given

notice of the grounds on which confiscation or penalty is proposed, an

opportunity to make a representation and a reasonable opportunity of

being heard. The first proviso permits the notice contemplated by

clause (a), and the representation contemplated by clause (b), to be

oral at the request of the person concerned.

23. The distinction between a genuine oral Show Cause Notice and

a mere recital of waiver is material. This Court has, in Ms. Shubhangi

Gupta (supra), held that the statutory requirement could not be treated

as satisfied merely because the Revenue asserted that the notice had

been waived, in the absence of material showing that an oral Show

Cause Notice had actually been given. Similarly, in Amit Kumar

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 11 of 18

(supra) this Court held that a printed waiver could not, by itself, be

deemed to constitute an oral Show Cause Notice.

24. The aforesaid principles are not in dispute. The question in the

present Petitions is whether, on the particular material available on

record, this Court should itself finally determine the factual and

evidentiary questions arising from the documents relied upon by the

Respondent and, on that basis, direct unconditional release of the

goods.

25. In the case of Mohammad Sadiq, the Respondent relies upon

the statement dated 25.02.2022 as well as the subsequent

communication dated 25.04.2022 submitted through his authorised

representative. The statement records, inter alia, the alleged Green

Channel violation, the Petitioner's awareness regarding Customs duty

and his purported decision not to require a Show Cause Notice or

personal hearing.

26. The Petitioner, however, disputes the circumstances in which

the statement was recorded and alleges that he was made to sign

documents which had already been prepared. The Petitioner also

disputes the manner in which the proceedings took place and relies

upon the non-production of CCTV footage.

27. In the case of Ulugbek Zokirov, the statement dated 24.02.2024

similarly records that the Petitioner was intercepted after crossing the

Green Channel, that the jewellery was recovered from him and that he

did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. The

Petitioner, however, specifically asserts that he knows only the Uzbek

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 12 of 18

language and that he was made to sign documents without the

contents being explained to him through a translator. He also alleges

coercion and relies upon CCTV footage in support of his version.

28. Thus, although the factual circumstances of the two Petitioners

are not identical, the nature of the controversy which arises from the

respective documents is substantially the same. In each case, the

Respondent relies upon a contemporaneous document which records

an alleged voluntary decision on the part of the passenger not to

require a Show Cause Notice and personal hearing, whereas the

passenger disputes the circumstances in which the document was

executed.

29. This Court is not inclined, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, to

undertake a detailed factual enquiry into these competing versions.

Such an enquiry would necessarily require examination of the original

records, the circumstances in which the respective statements were

recorded, the manner in which their contents were explained to the

Petitioners, the surrounding contemporaneous material, and, where

relevant, the CCTV footage and other records maintained by the

Customs Department.

30. This aspect assumes significance because the Respondent does

not seek to rely upon a bare, abstract waiver divorced from the

contemporaneous record. The Department relies upon documents

which purport to record the proceedings undertaken with the

Petitioners on the dates of interception. Whether those documents

merely contain a printed or standard recital of waiver, or whether the

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 13 of 18

proceedings actually constituted an oral notice satisfying the

requirements of Section 124, is a question which has to be determined

on the basis of the complete record.

31. This Court is conscious that the existence of a disputed factual

question cannot be used by the Department as a device to defeat the

mandatory consequence prescribed by Section 110(2). The Supreme

Court in Jatin Ahuja (supra) has made it clear that, in the absence of a

notice under Section 124(a) within the prescribed or validly extended

period, the consequence under Section 110(2) follows.

32. At the same time, in the present cases, the Court is not

confronted with an admitted position that no notice whatsoever was

given. The Department's specific case is that the proceedings

undertaken on the date of interception constituted an oral Show Cause

Notice and that the Petitioners expressly stated that they did not

require a written Show Cause Notice or personal hearing.

33. The Petitioners dispute this very factual premise. In particular,

the Petitioners dispute the voluntariness and circumstances of the

documents relied upon by the Department. These allegations cannot

be conclusively accepted merely because they have been pleaded in

the writ petitions. Equally, the Department's version cannot be

accepted merely because the documents contain recitals of

voluntariness and waiver.

34. The appropriate course, therefore, is to permit the competent

adjudicating authority to examine the complete record and determine

the legal effect of the contemporaneous documents in accordance with

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 14 of 18

the statutory scheme. This would include consideration of whether the

proceedings relied upon by the Department constituted a valid oral

notice within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 124 and,

consequently, whether the requirements of Section 110(2) stood

satisfied.

35. This Court is also mindful that no Order-in-Original has yet

been passed in either matter. The Petitioners seek, in substance, a final

determination by this Court that the Department has lost the authority

to proceed against the goods and that the goods must be released

unconditionally. Such a determination, in the peculiar factual

circumstances of the present cases, would require adjudication of the

disputed factual questions referred to above.

36. This Court is not persuaded that such an evidentiary exercise

ought to be undertaken in the present proceedings, particularly when

the competent adjudicating authority has not yet considered the

Petitioners‟ objections and the Respondent has undertaken to afford

the Petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing and to complete the

adjudication proceedings within a stipulated period.

37. This Court makes it clear that the present decision does not

proceed on the basis that a passenger can, by a mere printed waiver or

unilateral statement, dispense with the mandatory requirements of

Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Act. The decisions in ***Ms.

Shubhangi Gupta (supra) and Amit Kumar (supra) continue to

govern the legal position in their respective fields.

38. The question left open is a narrower one: whether the particular

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 15 of 18

proceedings and documents relied upon by the Department in the two

cases, when examined in their entirety, constitute compliance with the

statutory requirements and what consequence follows therefrom. That

determination shall be made by the competent authority strictly in

accordance with law.

39. In the case of Mohammad Sadiq, the Respondent has

additionally relied upon the Petitioner's delay of nearly four years in

approaching this Court. The delay is certainly a relevant circumstance

while considering the Petitioner's conduct and, in particular, the

disputed factual allegations now sought to be raised concerning the

circumstances in which the statement dated 25.02.2022 was recorded.

However, such delay, by itself, cannot dispense with the statutory

requirements contained in Section 110(2). The effect, if any, of the

alleged non-compliance with Section 110(2) shall have to be

determined in accordance with the statutory scheme and the law laid

down by the Supreme Court in Jatin Ahuja (supra).

40. In the case of Ulugbek Zokirov, the Petitioner's contention

regarding his inability to understand languages other than Uzbek and

the alleged absence of a translator is also a factual issue requiring

examination of the contemporaneous record. The Petitioner's

allegation of coercion and the Respondent's assertion of voluntariness

cannot, in our view, be conclusively determined merely on the

pleadings.

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

the merits of the alleged Green Channel violation in either case. This

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 16 of 18

Court has likewise not expressed any opinion regarding the

declaration or non-declaration of the goods, ownership thereof, their

importability, liability to confiscation, duty payable, redemption fine

or penalty.

42. The competent adjudicating authority shall consider the

objections of the respective Petitioners independently and strictly in

accordance with law. In particular, the authority shall consider the

Petitioners‟ objections concerning the statements purportedly recorded

under Section 108, the circumstances in which the documents were

executed, the alleged waiver of Show Cause Notice and personal

hearing, and the applicability and consequence of Section 110(2).

43. The Respondent cannot, however, take advantage of the

pendency of these Petitions to indefinitely retain the goods. The

adjudication shall be undertaken expeditiously and in accordance with

the statutory scheme. The competent authority shall also bear in mind

the binding principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Jatin Ahuja

(supra) and the decisions of this Court concerning Section 124.

44. In view of the undertaking furnished by the Respondent, the

respective Petitioners shall appear before the competent adjudicating

authority, personally or through a duly authorised representative, on

26.09.2026 at 2:30 pm. The competent authority shall afford each

Petitioner a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and shall

thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

45. The adjudication proceedings in each case shall be completed

expeditiously and, in any event, within six (06) weeks from the date

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 17 of 18

on which the concerned Petitioner or his duly authorised

representative appears before the competent authority pursuant to the

notice issued by the Respondent.

46. It is made clear that the competent authority shall not treat the

dismissal of the present Petitions as an affirmation of the

Department‟s contention that the requirements of Sections 110(2) and

124 of the Act stood satisfied merely by reason of the recitals

contained in the respective statements. The legal effect of the

documents shall be determined independently and in accordance with

law.

47. Insofar as the prayer for unconditional release of the goods is

concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant the same at this stage, for

the reasons recorded above. The prayer relating to

detention/warehousing charges shall also abide by the determination

to be made in accordance with law.

CONCLUSION

48. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the present Petitions

are dismissed, with the directions contained hereinabove.

49. The dismissal of the Petitions shall not be construed as an

affirmation of the Respondent‟s contention that a mere waiver of

Show Cause Notice or personal hearing, by itself, satisfies the

requirements of Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Act.

50. Nothing contained in this judgment shall be construed as an

expression of opinion on the merits of the Customs Department's

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter Page 18 of 18

allegations concerning the Green Channel violation, declaration or

non-declaration of the goods, ownership, liability to confiscation,

Customs duty, redemption fine or penalty.

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.

SEPTEMBER 02, 2026

sp/pal