Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
M/s. Hiseins Exim – Appellant
Versus
The Additional Commissioner of Customs, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. No. 35884 of 2024, W.M.P. Nos. 38737, 38739 of 2024
Decided On : 20-02-2026
For the Appellant : S. Baskaran
For the Respondent: Anu Ganesan
Issuance of a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act is mandatory before confiscation of goods; waivers regarding such notices are invalid, as they lead to serious civil consequences.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 124 - Mandatory issuance of show cause notice and opportunity for hearing prior to confiscation of goods is mandated by law - Waiver of show cause notice is invalid in cases leading to confiscation - (Paras 24, 32, 33)
(B) Confiscation of goods - A valid waiver for issuance of show cause notice cannot be derived from pre-printed forms and must involve a conscious, informed decision of the importer. - (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner imported goods which were confiscated without issuance of a show cause notice and personal hearing, although the petitioner claimed to have waived these rights. The respondent cited an earlier waiver letter but did not discuss the applicant's other claims regarding the goods.
Findings of Court:
The impugned confiscation order was quashed due to failure to issue a mandatory show cause notice as required under Section 124 of the Customs Act.
Issues: Whether a waiver of show cause notice applies to confiscation orders and if the notice is mandatory under Section 124 of the Customs Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Customs Department must issue a written notice before confiscation as failure to do so renders the order invalid and infringes upon principles of natural justice.
Result: The impugned order is hereby quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. mandatory issuance of show cause notice. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. distinction between sections 124 and 28 of customs act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner's waiver does not invalidate show cause requirement. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. nature and necessity of show cause notice. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. validity of waivers in confiscation cases. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. preconditions for confiscation orders. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. precedent applicability on waivers. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. prejudice consideration in legal orders. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 9. enforcement of procedural safeguards in legal actions. (Para 32) |
| 10. impugned order's failure to comply with natural justice. (Para 33) |
| 11. court's directive for procedural compliance in future. (Para 34) |
ORDER :
1. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the issuance of show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act is mandatory despite the fact that the petitioner had waived the issuance of show cause notice and personal hearing notice through their letter dated 14.09.2023.
2. In the impugned order in original, the subject goods imported by the petitioner has been ordered to be confiscated by the respondent and the petitioner has been directed to pay fine in lieu of compensation as per Section 125 of the Customs Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Section 124 of the Customs Act as well as Section 28 of the Customs Act and would submit that the issuance of show cause notice under both the sections are distinguishable. He would submit that under Section 28 of the Customs Act, the said show cause notice has to be issued by the Customs Department, post clearance of the goods by the importer for payment of differential customs duty. Whereas, according to him, Section 124 of the Customs Act, which also provides for issuance of show cause notice, deals with cases prior to the confiscation of goods.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that eventhough the petitioner may have given a letter to the respondent, waiving the issuance of show cause notice and waiving the personal hearing notice, the said letter does not have any bearing for the facts of the instant case since in the instant case, the respondent has confiscated the goods under the impugned order, for which the petitioner never agreed for waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing notice. Further, he would submit that the request of the petitioner to the respondent was only for re-export of the goods. He would also submit that a direction was also issued by this Court in W.P.No.18889 of 2024 on 05.08.2024, directing the respondent to consider the application for re-export of goods submitted by the petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Court.
5. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of considering the said application, the respondent has passed the impugned order confiscating the goods. According to him, being a confiscation order, necessarily, a show cause notice and personal hearing notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner by the respondent, which they failed to do so prior to the passing of the impugned order in original.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to a decision rendered by this Court in Salmag Enterprises Vs. Additional Commissioner of Customs (Adj), Tuticorin, 2021 (378) E.L.T. 415 (Mad.) and would submit that the very same point in issue was also the subject matter of consideration in the aforesaid decision and while discussing Section 124 of the Customs Act, the Madras High Court has held that issuance of show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act is mandatory despite the importer / exporter had earlier agreed for waiver of show cause notice and for waiver of personal hearing notice.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that even though in the petitioner’s repres
