Back
Rejects Mohammad Umar's Plea For Gold Release Over Dispute
The has dismissed a petition seeking unconditional release of two gold bars detained at , ruling that a dispute over whether the passenger validly waived a written and acknowledged an oral one involves questions of fact that cannot be resolved in .
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that the petitioner, Mohammad Umar, could not obtain a when the relied on —including his own statement and a written request—that materially contradicted his later allegations of .
The Facts: Gold Detention at the Green Channel
On
, Umar arrived from Medina on Flight SV 758. Customs officials intercepted him after he crossed the Green Channel and recovered two gold bars weighing 233 grams from his baggage. A Detention Receipt was issued, noting that the goods were
"detained at my request and sealed in my presence over my signature,"
and bore Umar's signature.
The same day, Umar gave a statement under . He stated that he had intentionally not declared the gold, was willing to pay duty, fine and , and did not require a or personal hearing. The statement recorded that it was given .
Nearly a month later, on
, Umar submitted a written request for release of the detained gold. In that request, he wrote:
"I opted for Green Channel but did not declare any dutiable item… I undertake that my case may be decided on merit and as such I do not want any written
and Personal Hearing in the matter. An oral SCN has been received."
No written was ever issued.
The Dispute Over
Umar later changed his position. Before the High Court, he claimed that he had actually declared the gold at the Red Channel and that Customs officials had forced him to sign pre-written documents and blank papers. He alleged that the Section 108 statement was false and obtained through , and that the written request was a pre-printed form that could not constitute a valid .
His counsel argued that Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act require a written within six months (extendable to one year), and that an oral notice could not be presumed merely because the passenger signed a . They relied on the 's decision in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja (2025) and the 's judgments in and , which held that the are mandatory and cannot be dispensed with by a .
The Revenue countered that the case was not about a bare . It pointed to Umar's own written request, which expressly acknowledged receipt of an . The Department submitted that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and that the factual dispute over could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings.
Court's Reasoning: Disputed Facts Bar Writ Relief
The High Court agreed with the Revenue. It observed that the petitioner's case was not one of "complete non-compliance" with statutory requirements, but rather a factual dispute about what happened.
"The Petitioner's explanation that he was coerced into signing the documents is a disputed factual assertion,"
the Court wrote.
"No contemporaneous
of the statement dated
has been brought to our notice. Likewise, the Petitioner did not, in his written request dated
, allege that his earlier statement had been forcibly obtained or that the contents thereof were incorrect."
The Court distinguished Shubhangi Gupta , noting that in that case the Revenue relied solely on a without asserting that an had actually been issued. Here, Umar's own acknowledgment created a "further and independent document" that materially distinguished the case.
The Bench also declined to examine CCTV footage that Umar claimed would show he had declared the gold at the Red Channel, holding that such an was inappropriate in .
Caution Against Mechanical Waivers
Despite dismissing the petition, the Court issued a significant caveat:
"Nothing stated herein shall, however, be construed as approval of any practice whereby a passenger is made to sign a standard form mechanically waiving the
under Section 124 of the Act. The statutory requirements must be complied with in accordance with law."
The Court clarified that the dismissal does not prejudice Umar's right to pursue other remedies, including before the competent Customs authority or through a statutory .
The Final Decision
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that Umar had failed to establish an undisputed case of statutory violation warranting a for release of the gold bars. It made no findings on the ultimate liability for or , leaving those matters to be decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with law.
