Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 8505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Shail Jain, JJ
TARUN ARORA – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS – Respondent
W.P.(C)-16724/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Richa Kumari
For the Respondents: Vishal Chadha, Chandan Kumar
If no show cause notice is issued under Section 124 within six months of seizure (or extended period up to one year), goods must be returned unconditionally; pre-printed waiver of SCN and personal hearing is invalid.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 110, 111(d), 111(j), 111(m), 112(a), 112(b), 124 - Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended) - Seizure and confiscation of gold chain - Pre-printed waiver of Show Cause Notice and personal hearing is invalid in law - If no show cause notice issued within six months of seizure (or extended period up to one year), the goods must be returned unconditionally - Continued detention of goods contrary to law.
(B) Appeal - Limitation - Court permitted filing of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) beyond limitation period, directing that it be adjudicated on merits and not dismissed on ground of limitation.
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, an Indian passport holder, arrived from Bangkok on 16th July, 2023. A gold chain weighing 100 grams was seized by the Customs Department upon arrival. The Customs Department obtained a pre-printed waiver of Show Cause Notice and personal hearing from the Petitioner, and thereafter passed an Order-in-Original (OIO) on 12th August, 2023 directing absolute confiscation of the gold chain and imposing a penalty. The Petitioner was allegedly advised that no remedy was available. The Petitioner challenged the continued detention of the gold chain via writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that pre-printed waivers of SCN and personal hearing are not valid in law (relying on Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs). Further, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, if no show cause notice is issued under Section 124 within six months of seizure (or within the extended period of up to one year), the goods must be released unconditionally. The Petitioner could not be rendered remediless; hence, he was permitted to challenge the OIO by way of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) with an extended limitation period.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of a pre-printed waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing, and the consequence of failure to issue a show cause notice within the statutory period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a pre-printed waiver of SCN and personal hearing is invalid. The mandatory provision of Section 110(2) requires that if no show cause notice is issued within six months (or extended period), the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. The power of release under Section 110A does not extinguish this consequence.
Result: Writ petition disposed of; Petitioner permitted to file appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) by 10th January, 2026, to be decided within four months, considering relevant precedents.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the continued detention of a gold chain weighing 100 grams (hereinafter, ‘gold chain’) which was seized by the Customs Department on 16th July, 2023.
3. The brief background of the Petitioner’s case is that, the Petitioner is an Indian Passport holder bearing No. Z7342352 and had travelled from Bangkok to India on 16th July, 2023. Upon his arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, he was intercepted by the concerned officials of the Customs Department and the gold chain was seized by the Customs Department vide detention receipt No. 2224 dated 16th July, 2023. The gold chain was appraised on 31st July, 2023 by the Customs Departmentvide detention receipt No. 69770 dated 31st July, 2023.
4. The Petitioner is stated to have visited the Customs Department repeatedly. However, the Customs Department got a pre-printed waiver of the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) and personal hearing signed from the Petitioner. Thereafter the Order-in-Original dated 12th August, 2023 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘OIO’). The Petitioner in fact visited the Customs Department multiple times and entry passes of the Petitioner dated 26th July, 2023 and 18th August, 2023 have also been placed on record.
5. Vide the OIO absolute confiscation of the gold chain has been directed in the following terms:
“i) I deny the ‘Free Allowance' if any admissible to the Pax Mr. Tarun Arora 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, Mr. Tarun Arora, is 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 the above said detained goods i.e., “one gold chain purity 996 weighing 100.00 grams valued at Rs.6,24,475.00” (as on 16.07.2023) recovered from the Pax Mr. Tarun Arora and detained vide DR/ INDEL4/16-07-2023/002224 Dated 16.07.2023, under Section 111(d), 111(j) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962;
iv) I also impose a penalty of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.SixtyThousand Only) on the Pax. Mr. Tarun Arora under Section 112(a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962”
6. Upon being queried by the Court as to why the Petitioner did not challenge the OIO within the time prescribed, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was wrongly advised by the Customs Department that there is no remedy available, as absolute confiscation of the gold bar has been directed.
7. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the OIO has been with the Petitioner continuously since September, 2023. There was a clear waiver of any SCN or personal hearing by the Petitioner. It is not even the case of the Petitioner that he did not have the OIO. Thus, under such circumstances, the order has attained finality.
8. The Court has considered the matter. In view of the decision in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:751-DB, standard pre-printed waivers of Show Cause Notice and personal hearing would not be valid in law. Additionally, the continued detention of the gold chain would be contrary to law in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024 dated 11th September, 2025, where it has been held that if there is no Show Cause Notice issued to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled to unconditional release of the goods. The relevant extracts of the judgment is set out below:
“17. It is difficult for us also to subscribe to the views expressed by the Bombay High Court in Jayant
