$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11522/2025 & CM APPL. 72176/2025 DEVINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Richa Kumari, Mr. Pawan, Ms.

Aarti Gupta, Mr. Aman Asht & Mr.

Prashant Chaudhary, Advs.

versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms.

Suhani Mathur, Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur & Mr. Jai Ahuja, Advs.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

% 18.11.2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 72176/2025 (for directions)

2. The present application has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking release of the goods which have been detained by the Customs Department, in terms of the previous order dated 6^th August, 2025.

3. The goods that were detained by the Customs Department are one gold kada and one gold chain weighing 116 grams each (hereinafter, ‘gold items’), detained vide detention receipt dated 20th April, 2021.

4. A brief background of the Petitioner’s case is that, the Petitioner had travelled to Dubai for employment purposes. However, he was under continuous medical treatment following the surgery for Craniopharyngioma.

He returned to India within two to three days for urgent medical care, and at the time when he came back to India and landed at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi the gold items were seized on 20th April, 2021 by the Customs Department.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Customs Department is contemplating to file an SLP against the order dated 6th August, 2025.

6. The Petitioner’s case is that he is an Indian citizen. The gold items that have been directed to be released, in terms of the previous order dated 6th August, 2025, are personal effects of the Petitioner.

7. The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that no Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner.Thus,continued detention ofthegold items would be contrary to law in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3489/2024 titled Union of India and Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja dated 11^th September, 2025. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

“17. It is difficult for us also to subscribe to the views expressed by the Bombay High Court in Jayant Hansraj Shah’s case (supra). We are of the view that the only power that has been conferred upon the Revenue to extend the time period is in accordance with the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act, 1962. The Delhi High Court is right in saying that any effort to say that the release under Section 110A of the Act, 1962 would extinguish the operation of the consequence of not issuing show-cause notice within the statutory period spelt out in Section 110(2) would becontrarytotheplainmeaningandintendmentofthe statute.

18. The Delhi High Court has done well to explain that this is so because Section 110A, is by way of an interim order, enabling release of goods like fast moving or perishable etc. The existence of such power does not, in any way,impede or limit the operationof the mandatory provision of Section 110(2).

19.Inthe case inhand,indisputably thecar was seized under sub-section (1) and furthermore no notice in respect of the goods seized was given under clause (a) of section 124 of the said Act within six months of the seizure. The consequence, therefore, in such a case is that the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. The first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 110 of the said Act, however, provides that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the six months' period by a periodnotexceedingsixmonthsandinformtheperson from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified. The proviso therefore contemplates that the period of six months mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 110 of the said Act can be extended by the high