$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 19 July 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 27 August 2024 + W.P.(C) 10971/2023 ELENA SHVEDOVA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. D.S. Chadha, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Nishtha Mittal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

J UD G M E N T

%

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. Petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) Issue a Writ Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction for Release / Return / Re-

export the gold to the Petitioner.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Petitioner is a foreign national and a resident of Moscow, Russia. As per averments in the petition, petitioner purchased five gold bars, weighing 1075 grams from her bank in Russia.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10971/2023 Page 1 of 7

3. Petitioner came to India and brought the said five gold bars for making jewellery and taking back to her country.

4. Petitioner was intercepted by the Customs Officers near the green channel . The gold bars were seized by the Customs Officers vide Detention Receipt No. 61069 dated 21.01.2023. Petitioner was forced to sign pre-narrated documents, which were in English language. Petitioner later returned to her country and sent a letter dated 07.02.2023 to the Commissioner of Customs stating the ordeal, she had undergone. She sent yet another letter to the Commissioner of Customs wherein she requested not to sell her gold.

5. It has been stated that no Show Cause Notice [“SCN”] has been given to the petitioner till date under Section 124 (a) read with Section 110 of the Customs Act, the said gold should therefore be returned to her unconditionally.

6. In its counter affidavit, Revenue stated that the SCN dated 03.07.2023 was issued by the Competent Authority within the stipulated time period and the same was also sent to the petitioner by email dated 04.07.2023 but petitioner did not file any reply to the same.

SUBMISSIONS:

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no SCN as per Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 was served upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the mode of service of the alleged notice to the petitioner was by way of speed post through Ministry of Law & Justice but without providing the complete address of the petitioner to be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10971/2023 Page 2 of 7 served and this fact has been concealed by the respondent, inasmuch as, the SCN sent to Ministry of Law & Justice was returned back to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on 10.08.2023 for not providing the complete and correct address of the party to be served upon. It is submitted that petitioner did not receive any email forwarding the SCN from the email address “Pre.ShiftC@gmail.com” as stated in the counter affidavit and the inbox of the email of the petitioner also does not reflect any such mail having been received from respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the e-mail sent is not valid as per Para 2.1 of the E-mail Policy of India, passed by the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology.

8. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the SCN has been duly served to the petitioner through e-mail. The e-mail has not bounced back, therefore, there is a presumption of due service of notice upon the petitioner.

REASONS & ANALYSIS

9. Before considering the merits of the contentions of the parties, it would be apposite to examine the relevant legal framework.

10. Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under:-

"110. Seizure of Goods, Documents and Things. -

(1) ................ .

(2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the p