Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Shail Jain, JJ
SANDEEP – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM AND ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 13169/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohd. Mazhar Siddiqui, Md. Ather Ansari, Mr. S. Vijay Kant
For the Respondents: Mr. Atul Tripathi, Mr. Gaurav Mani Tripathi, Mr. Shubham Mishra
Confiscation of goods without a valid show cause notice and personal hearing violates natural justice principles under the Customs Act.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), 111(m), 112(a), 112(b), 124 - Confiscation of goods - Requirement of show cause notice and personal hearing prior to confiscation emphasized; standard waivers invalidated. - Detained articles of personal use must be released in compliance with natural justice requirements. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 12, 34)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice must be upheld in customs proceedings; waivers of personal hearings and notice using pre-printed forms found contrary to the requirements of law. (Paras 7 to 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s two gold articles were seized upon arrival from Dubai; he contended they were personal effects meant for re-export. The impugned order resulted in their absolute confiscation and imposition of a penalty without a proper hearing.
Findings of Court:
The confession of waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing is invalidated; the impugned order cannot stand without fulfilling the requirements of providing these opportunities to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the Customs Department lawfully detained goods without providing an opportunity for a show cause notice and personal hearing as per Section 124 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that failure to provide a valid show cause notice and personal hearing makes the detention of goods unlawful; practices contravening natural justice principles are to be discontinued.
Result: The impugned order is set aside, and the detained items are to be released.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner’s personal items seized upon arrival. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. legal necessity for a show cause notice and personal hearing. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. invalid waiver practices must cease. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's decision to set aside detention order. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
O R D E R
% 28.08.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Sandeep, who is a resident of Morocco holding a residence card of the said country and had travelled from New Delhi to Dubai on 6th April, 2024.
3. Upon the Petitioner’sarrival inNew Delhi,twogold articles,beingone gold kada weighing 50 grams and one gold chain weighing 35 grams (hereinafter,‘detainedarticles’)wereseizedanddetainedafterappraisement. The case of the Petitioner is that the detained articles are his personal effects and thus, he has sought release of the same.
4. The Petitioner, challenges the order in original dated 4th July, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’), wherein absolute confiscation and penalty of Rs.60,000/- has been directed in the following terms.
W.P.(C)13169/2025 Page1of8 “ORDER i) I deny the ‘Free Allowance’ if any, admissible to the Pax Sandeep for not declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted him and recovered the detained goods from him.
ii) I declare the passenger Sandeep as an “ineligible Passenger” for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended).
(iii) — I order absolute confiscation of:
(i) One gold kada having average purity 996 with gross and net weight 50 grams having Assessable value Rs.3,20,256/-
(ii) One gold chain having average purity 996 with gross and net weight 35 grams having Assessable value Rs.2,24,179/-
(iii) The total weiyht of the gold items is 85 grams and the total Assessable value is Rs.5,44,434/-
recovered from the Pax Sandeep and detained vide DR No. 52505 dated 06.04.2024 under section 111(d), 111 (i), 111(j) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 ;
iii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only) on the Pax Sandeep under section 112 (a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 .”
5. Upon thedetention of the articles,the Petitioner confirmed that an oral show cause notice had been received but no personal hearings were afforded to him. The same has also been recorded in the impugned order in the following terms:
“4. Mr. Mohammed Ather, Advocate having Enrolment No.2999/09 visited this office and submitted an W.P.(C)13169/2025 Page2of8 Authority Letter/Special Power of Attorney dated 15.04.2024 on behalf of the Pax. Mr. Mohammed Ather, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the AR of the Pax) has his residence address as Near 788 Biri Factory, MohallaGherPachchaiyan,Amroha,POAmrohaDistt, Uttar Pradesh. The AR of the Pax submitted a request letter dated: 24.04.2024 for Re-export of the detained goods. It is further inter alia submitted that the pax had arrived from Dubai by flight no. IX-136 dated 05.04.2024 and optedfor the Green Channel but didnot declare any dutiable item which he brought in his baggage namely Gold jewellery and hence they were detained. It is further submitted that the detained goods are meant for personal use and as such requested for Re-Export of the detained goods. It is also submitted that the Pax regrets his mistake of opting for Green Channel and requested for a lenient view to be taken in the matter and that the case be decided on merit and as such did not want any show cause notice and personal hearing in the matter. An oral SCN has been received. The AR of the Pax has submitted a Attested Photo Copy of the following, which is Notarised, as a relevant document for Re-export of the said detained item:-
”
W.P.(C)13169/2025 Page3of8
6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had already made a request for re-export of detained articles
