Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Anish Dayal, JJ
ARJUN SINGH & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM – Respondent
W.P.(C) 13436/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Harvinder Singh
For the Respondents: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC, Mr. Naman Choula
Detaining goods without a valid Show Cause Notice is unlawful under the Customs Act, mandating release.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 110 and 124 - Petition filed seeking release of seized goods - The Court ruled that, under Section 110, the SCN must be issued within a specified period; since none was issued, the goods are liable to release. (Paras 5, 6, 19)
(B) Waiver of SCN - The Court reaffirmed the necessity of valid waivers and personal hearings; pre-printed waivers violate natural justice. (Paras 6, 19)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners seek the release of goods detained for over a year without a Show Cause Notice per law.
Findings of Court:
Goods detained without valid SCN are deemed released under Section 124.
Issues: The main question was whether the detainment of goods without an SCN is lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of an SCN renders the detention unlawful, reinforcing the right to a hearing.
Result: Petition allowed; goods to be released upon duty payment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seizure and release of goods (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. validity of scn issuance (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. post-release conditions for goods (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. conclusion and disposal of petition (Para 11 , 12) |
O R D E R
% 02.09.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. ThepresentpetitionhasbeenfiledbythePetitionersunderArticles226 and 227 of the Constitution India, inter alia, seeking release of the following goods of the Petitioner:
i. iPad Pro – 2 units ii. iPad Air – 2 unit iii. iPad – 1 unit iv. HP Laptop – 1 unit v. Apple Laptop – 1 unit vi. iPhone 14 Pro – 2 units vii. iPhone 13 Pro – 1 unit viii. iPhone 12 Pro MAX – 2 units ix. iPhone XS MAX – 2 units x. iPhone 12 – 3 units xi. iPhone 11 – 3 units xii. iPhone X – 6 units xiii. iPhone 8 – 2 units xiv. Samsung Galaxy A34 – 4 units xv. Samsung Android Mobile – 11 units xvi. Android Mobiles – 3 units xvii. Sony Camera – 1 unit W.P.(C)13436/2025 Page1of5 xviii. Walkie Talkie – 1 unit xix. Samsung Tab – 1 unit The said goods have been detained vide detention receipt bearing no.
DR/INDEL4/30-08-2024/005018 dated 30th August 2024.
3. Petitioner No.2- Mr. Harwinder Singh has filed the present petition as PowerofAttorneyholderofPetitionerNo.1-Mr.ArjunSingh.PetitionerNo. 2 has appeared in person today. It is his case that the detention of the goods took place on 30th August, 2024 and the one year period for issuance of SCN under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 has already lapsed.Accordingly, the Petitioner prays for release of the seized goods.
4. Ms. Anushree Narain, ld. SSC for the Respondent submits that the seized goods are dutiable and even though the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) has not been issued, the duty would still have to be paid. Ms.Narainsubmitsthatthe Petitioner,forthesaid purpose,canappearbefore the Customs Department, pursuant to which an order in accordance with law would be passed in terms of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 . Ms. Narain, ld. SSC further submits that the Petitioner agreed to waive the SCN on 30th August, 2024.
5. Heard.Aperusaloftherecordwouldshowthatthegoodsweredetained on 30th August, 2024 through detention receipt bearing number DR/INDEL4/30-08-2024/005018. Under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 a duty is cast upon the Customs Department to issue an SCN within a period of six months and even which is extendible by another six months, if the conditions are satisfied. However, the SCN has not been issued in this matter and hence, the goods are liable to be released in terms of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 .
W.P.(C)13436/2025 Page2of5
6. This Court has held repeatedly that standard pre-printed waivers of SCN and personal hearing would not be valid in law. The same has been held in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs , 2025:DHC:751- DB. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
“16. A perusal of Section 124 of the Act along with the alleged waiver which is relied upon would show that the oral SCN cannot be deemed to have been served in this manner as is being alleged by the Department. If an oral SCN waiver has to be agreed to by theperson concerned, the same ought to be in the form of a proper declaration, consciously signed by the person concerned. Even then, an opportunity of hearing ought to be afforded, inasmuch as, the person concerned cannot be condemned unheard in these matters. Printed waivers of this nature would fundamentally violate rights of persons who are affected. Natural justice is not merely lip-service. It has to be given effect and complied with in letter and spirit
17. The three-pronged waiver which the form contains is not even decipherable or comprehensible to the common man. Apart from agreeing as per the said form that the oral SCN has been served, the person affected has also waived a right for personal hearing. Such a form in fact shocks the conscience of the Court, that too in cases of the present nature where travellers/tourists are made to run from pillar to
