$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 8^th October, 2025 + W.P.(C) 14749/2025 MOHAMMAD ALI BARAZANDEH .....Petitioner Through: Mohammed Ather & Md. Mobeen Akhter, Advs. (M: 7011359907)

versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr.

Naman Choula, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking unconditional release of the Petitioner’s gold chain seized by the Customs Department vide detention receipt dated 30th April, 2022.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is an Iranian national who was travelling from Iran to India on 30th April, 2022. Upon his arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, the Petitioner was intercepted by the Customs Department and the Petitioner’s gold chain was seized. It is stated that the said gold chain was appraised by the Customs Department on 30th May, 2022.

4. ThePetitionerisaggrievedbythefactthatnoshowcausenoticehasbeen issued till date and no personal hearing has been granted. Thus, the Petitioner’s stand is that he is entitled to release of the gold chain.

5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 23rd September, 2025 the ld. Counsel for thePetitionerhadreliedupontherecentjudgmentoftheSupremeCourtinCivil Appeal No.3489/2024 titled Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja dated 11^th September, 2025 (hereinafter “Jatin Ahuja - I”). It is submitted that as per the said judgement where no show cause notice is issued within the period prescribed under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter “the Act”), and the goods have not been provisionally released under Section 110A of the Act, then the same shall be released to the passenger. The relevant portion of the said judgement 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 higher authority for a further period not exceeding six months, for reasons to be recorded in writing. The proviso also requires the higher authority to inform this to the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period of six monthsmentionedinsub-section(2)of