Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6175
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Shail Jain, JJ
AMAN VERMA – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS – Respondent
W.P.(C) 8290/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Richa Kumari
For the Respondents: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC, Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr. Raghav Bakshi, Mr. Sahil Parashar, Ms. Shreya Lamba, Mr. Akhil Sharma
Detention of goods without proper Show Cause Notice violates legal rights; administrative actions must adhere to principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 110 and Section 124 - Detention of goods without a valid Show Cause Notice - The petitioner’s request for release of detained jewellery was not adhered to within the statutory period - Oral Show Cause Notice deemed invalid without proper compliance of the law - Natural justice must be upheld in administrative proceedings. (Paras 5, 10, 19)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Court reiterated that no order can be issued without the issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice and the opportunity for personal hearing must be afforded to the concerned parties as per the provisions of the Act. (Paras 10, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, arriving at Delhi airport, had his jewellery seized by Customs without an issued Show Cause Notice as mandated by law, despite subsequent requests for release.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the detention of the jewellery was unlawful due to the absence of a proper Show Cause Notice, ordering its release.
Issues: The main issue was whether the pre-printed waiver of Show Cause Notice complied with legal requirements and if proper procedure was followed by the Customs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court stressed that printed waivers do not fulfill legal requirements and asserted that all parties must be heard before decisions are made that affect their rights.
Result: The detention was set aside and the jewellery ordered to be released.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jewellery seized at airport without valid procedures. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Thepresentpetitionhasbeenfiled,interalia,seekingreleaseofonegold kada weighing 100 grams (hereinafter “the detained jewellery”) which was detainedbytheCustomsDepartment videDetentionReceiptdated19thMarch, 2024.
3. ThecaseofthePetitioneristhaton19thMarch,2024thePetitioner,who is an Indian citizen, arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Dubai. The Petitioner was intercepted by the Customs officials and the detained jewellery was seized. Further, on 8th August, 2024 the appraisement of detained jewellery was conducted.
4. Thereafter, the Petitioner is stated to have visited the Customs Department on 6th May, 2024 and 8th August, 2024 seeking release of the detained jewellery. However, the same was not released. Further, it is stated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C)8290/2025 Page1of5 that no Show Cause Notice has been issued till date.
5. It is the settled position in law that under Section 110 read with Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter “the Act”) the period for issuance of the Show Cause Notice from the date of seizure is six months. The said period may be extended by another six months in terms of Section 110 (2) of the Act. 6. On the last date i.e., 23rd July, 2025, it was submitted by Mr. Singla, ld. SSC that an oral SCN was issued to the Petitioner when he had appeared for appraisementon8thAugust,2024.On23rd July,2025the following directions were issued:-
“ 8. At this stage, Mr. Singla submits that personal hearing was given to the Petitioner. Let an affidavit be filed by the Customs Department to the following effect.
(i) Details of the official who served oral Show Cause upon the Petitioner.
(ii) When was the notice of personal hearing given and in what manner.
(iii) Whether any Order-in-Original has even been passed till date.
(iv) Statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 be placed on record.
9. The Customs Department shall stand restrained from passing any Order-in-Original after passing of today's order.”
7. Today,ashortcounteraffidavitdated14thAugust,2025hasbeenplaced on record on behalf of the Customs Department, wherein the Department has placed reliance on the pre-printed waiver dated 19th March, 2024, signed by the Petitioner waivingof written Show Cause Notice andpersonal hearing.The relevant portion of the same is as under:
“It is humbly requested that said detained goods may please be RELEASED. I regret my mistake of opting for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C)8290/2025 Page2of5 Green Channel and further request you to please take a lenient viewin thematter. I undertake thatmy case may be decided on merit and as such I do not want any written Show Cause Notice and Personal Hearing in the matter. An oral Show Cause Notice has been received.
8. However,theCustomsDepartment,despitetheabovewaiver,hadissued a notice for personal hearing dated 29th May, 2025, fixing certain dates for hearing the Petitioner.
9. The Court has heard the parties and perused the documents placed on record including the short affidavit on behalf of the Department. Clearly, no Order-in-Originalhasbeenpassedtilldate.Further,thoughthestatementofthe PetitionerunderSection108oftheActisstatedtohavebeenrecordedthesame has also not been placed on record.
10. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the pre-printed standard waiver of even written Show Cause Notice is not valid in law as held by this Court in Amit Kumar vs The Commissioner of Customs :2025:DHC: 751-DB . The relevant portion of the said judgement is extracted below:-
“15.Aperusalof Section 124 oftheActwouldshowthateven after an oral showcausenotice is given,the authority has the discretiontoissuesupplementarynoticeundercircumstances which may be prescribed. For ready reference
