Delhi High Court Refuses Fahim Ahmad's Petition Over Disputed Waiver of Show Cause Notice

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Fahim Ahmad challenging the absolute confiscation of a gold bar by Customs authorities, holding that the matter involves disputed questions of fact that are more appropriately examined by the statutory revisional authority.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain observed that while the existence of an alternative remedy does not completely bar the High Court's writ jurisdiction, the present case required examination of factual circumstances surrounding the alleged waiver of a show cause notice and personal hearing.

Case Background

Fahim Ahmad arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi from Bahrain on June 2, 2024. After crossing the Green Channel, Customs authorities intercepted him and recovered a gold bar weighing 116 grams, engraved with "NAIF" and bearing 999 purity. The gold was detained and subsequently absolutely confiscated by the adjudicating authority, which also imposed a penalty of ₹1.15 lakh on Ahmad under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Customs authorities recorded a statement from Ahmad under Section 108 of the Act on the same day. According to the Department, Ahmad stated that he did not require issuance of a show cause notice or a personal hearing. The Department further relied on a communication dated June 7, 2024, submitted through Ahmad's authorized representative, reiterating the same position. The authorities contended that an oral show cause notice had been issued in terms of the first proviso to Section 124 of the Act.

Ahmad challenged the order-in-original before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal on August 27, 2025. He then approached the High Court by way of the present writ petition.

Arguments Presented

Ahmad's counsel argued that no written show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act had been issued before the confiscation order, and that the requirement of a show cause notice is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. It was submitted that the document dated June 2, 2024, relied upon by the Department, was not a valid statement under Section 108 and that Ahmad had been made to sign it without its contents being explained. The petitioner also disputed that the recital regarding not requiring a show cause notice could amount to a valid request for an oral notice.

On the other hand, the Department submitted that the statement was voluntary and never retracted, and that an oral show cause notice had been issued. It further argued that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of revision under Section 129DD of the Act.

Legal Analysis

The Court noted that the controversy could not be resolved merely by noticing that no written show cause notice was issued. The first proviso to Section 124 contemplates an oral notice at the request of the person concerned. Therefore, the precise question required examination of the documents and circumstances surrounding the alleged statement, the request concerning the show cause notice, and the oral notice.

The Court observed that the petitioner disputed the character, voluntariness, and legal effect of the documents relied upon by the Department. "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," the Court said.

The Court further noted that the Customs Act provides a specific revisionary remedy against the order-in-appeal under Section 129DD, which is the appropriate forum for examining disputed factual and legal issues.

Key Observations

The Court made the following key observations:

  • "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 ."

  • "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 ."

  • "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."

Court's Decision

The High Court dismissed the petition with liberty to Ahmad to avail the statutory remedy of revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act against the order-in-appeal dated August 27, 2025. The Court directed that if the petitioner avails the remedy within four weeks, the revisional authority shall not reject it on the ground that he had approached the High Court.

The Court clarified that the dismissal should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits, and all questions, including the validity of the statement dated June 2, 2024, the alleged oral show cause notice, and the legality of the confiscation and penalty, are left open for the competent authority to consider in accordance with law.