$~64

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 18^thDecember, 2025

Uploaded on: 20th December, 2025

+ W.P.(C) 16673/2025

MOHAMMAD KHADIM KHAN .....Petitioner

Through: Mohd. Ather Ansari, Md. Mobin

Akhtar, Md. Salman, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Vishal Chadha Senior Standing

Counsel along with Mr. Chandan

Kumar Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of the gold kada weighing 116 grams (hereinafter. ‘gold item’), which was detained by the Customs Department vide detention receipt bearing no.

DR/lNDEL4/16-01-2024/003547 dated 16th January, 2024.

3. A brief background of the Petitioner’s case is that he is an Indian passport holder who has been residing in Saudi Arabia for the past 10 years. The Petitioner has purchased the gold item from Saudi Arabia. The Petitioner had travelled back to India on 16th January, 2024. 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 item was seized.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no Show Cause Notice has been issued to the Petitioner till date. Further, the submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that he is willing to pay the Customs duty.

5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 3rd November, 2025, the Court directed the Customs Department to produce the gold items before the Court. The same have been produced today in a sealed box.

6. The Court has perused the seized gold items which have been produced today and the same do not appear to be personal jewellery of the Petitioner.

7. Mr. Chadha, ld. SSC submits that the Petitioner has not approached the Customs Department for appraisement of the gold items.

8. However, since there is no Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) issued to the Petitioner in this matter, in terms of Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024the detention would no longer be tenable.

9. It is the settled position in law, after Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja (Supra) that without a SCN under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods of the Petitioner would be liable to be released. The relevant observation in Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja (Supra) stated 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 be contrary to the plain meaning and intendment of the 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 operation of the mandatory provision of Section 110(2).

19. In the case in hand, indisputably the car 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 r