IRFAN Vs Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court considered a writ petition filed by Irfan seeking release of a 116-gram gold bar seized by Customs authorities at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 06.12.2020. The principal question was whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine a challenge to the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023 when the order was amenable to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Petitioner had approached the Court only in 2025 after several years of inaction.
The Petitioner had arrived from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 06.12.2020 by Flight No. G8-6716. After crossing the Green Channel, he was intercepted and a yellow metal bar of “Suisse” brand weighing 116 grams was recovered from his possession and detained vide Detention Receipt No. 16583 dated 06.12.2020. On the same date, a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded. The statement recorded that the gold had been given to the Petitioner by a friend, that he had intentionally attempted to clear it through the Green Channel without payment of customs duty and without declaration, and that he did not require a show cause notice.
Customs authorities subsequently issued communications and a public notice concerning detained/seized valuable goods lying at the IGI Airport warehouse and Disposal (Valuable) Godown. The Petitioner did not approach the Customs authorities pursuant to the public notice. The adjudication proceedings culminated in a common Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023 bearing Issue No. I/1230745/2023. The gold bar was ordered to be absolutely confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, with penalties imposed under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA.
The Petitioner contended that detention could not continue beyond the period prescribed under Section 110(2) in the absence of a show cause notice under Section 124. Reliance was placed on Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024, decided on 11.09.2025, and Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. The Petitioner also disputed the genuineness and legal character of the Section 108 statement, asserted that it was pre-typed and not in his handwriting, and contended that the circumstances in which it was signed could be demonstrated through CCTV footage. He further challenged the findings concerning the alleged Green Channel violation and his entitlement to import the gold.
The Respondent submitted that the statement had been voluntarily tendered and expressly recorded that the Petitioner did not require a show cause notice and that the matter could be decided on merits. It was also submitted that the Petitioner did not respond to subsequent communications or the public notice and took no steps for several years. The Respondent therefore contended that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches and availability of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 128.
The Court found that the controversy was no longer confined to continued detention of the gold. The Petitioner was also seeking to assail the completed adjudication proceedings and the Order-in-Original on grounds requiring examination of the adjudication record, including the alleged non-service of notice, denial of hearing, legal effect of the purported waiver, circumstances surrounding the statement, subsequent communications and the findings concerning the Green Channel violation and import of gold.
The Court held that these issues ought not to be examined for the first time in writ jurisdiction when the Customs Act provides a specific appellate remedy. Section 128 provides an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against a decision or order passed by an officer of Customs lower in rank than a Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs. Although availability of an alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar to High Court jurisdiction under Article 226, exhaustion of an efficacious alternative remedy remains a recognised principle governing exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Court found that the present case did not warrant departure from that principle.
The Court also treated the prolonged inaction as an independent circumstance weighing against exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction. The Petitioner admittedly knew of the seizure on 06.12.2020, did not approach the Department pursuant to the public notice, did not challenge the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023 before the statutory appellate authority, and approached the Court only in 2025. No satisfactory explanation for the prolonged inaction was furnished.
The Court therefore declined to examine the validity of the Order-in-Original for the first time under Article 226 and dismissed the Petition on account of the availability of the statutory appellate remedy and unexplained delay and laches. The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Petitioner’s challenge, including the contentions concerning Sections 110(2) and 124, the alleged waiver of show cause notice or personal hearing, the Section 108 statement, the alleged Green Channel violation, or the confiscation and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The Petition and pending applications, if any, were accordingly disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja, Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024, decided on 11.09.2025.
- Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., Delhi High Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine a challenge to the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023, whereby the gold bar weighing 116 grams seized from the Petitioner on 06.12.2020 was confiscated and penalty was imposed, when the Petitioner approached this Court only in 2025 after remaining inactive for several years and the said order is amenable to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 [„Act‟].
2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks, inter alia, release of the gold bar weighing 116 grams seized from him on 06.12.2020 and consequential reliefs, while also challenging the adjudication proceedings culminating in the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023 on the ground that no show cause notice or effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to him.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
4. The Petitioner, an Indian citizen, arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 06.12.2020 from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia by Flight No. G8-6716. Upon interception by the Customs authorities after he had crossed the Green Channel, one yellow metal bar of “Suisse” brand, weighing 116 grams, was recovered from his possession. The said gold bar was detained vide Detention Receipt No. 16583 dated 06.12.2020.
5. On the same date, a statement under Section 108 of the Act was recorded from the Petitioner. In the said statement, the Petitioner is recorded as having stated, inter alia, that he had been intercepted after crossing the Green Channel; that the gold bar had been given to him by his friend and did not belong to him; that he had intentionally attempted to clear the same through the Green Channel without payment of customs duty and without declaring it; and that he admitted his omission and commission. The statement further records that the Petitioner did not require any show cause notice and that the case may be decided on merits. It also records that the statement had been tendered voluntarily, without duress, pressure or threat, and that its contents had been understood by him in vernacular.
6. Subsequently, the Customs authorities initiated proceedings in respect of the detained/seized goods. The Respondent has placed on record communications issued to the concerned passengers as well as a public notice issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), IGI Airport, concerning disposal of detained/seized valuable goods lying in the warehouse and Disposal (Valuable) Godown at Terminal-3, IGI Airport. The said public notice called upon the concerned passengers to approach the Customs authorities within two weeks of its publication, failing which further process for disposal of the goods would be initiated. The Petitioner did not approach the Customs authorities pursuant to the said notice.
7. The adjudication proceedings thereafter culminated in a common Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023 bearing Issue No. I/1230745/2023, whereby, inter alia, the gold bar covered by Detention Receipt No. 16583 dated 06.12.2020 was ordered to be absolutely confiscated under Section 111 of the Act and penalty was imposed under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Act.
8. It is the Petitioner‟s case that he was never served with any show cause notice or notice of hearing and that he came to know of the Order-in-Original only upon an enquiry made through his counsel on 26.09.2025. The present Petition was thereafter instituted seeking, inter alia, release of the gold bar and a direction that no detention or warehouse charges be recovered from the Petitioner.
9. The record does not disclose that the Petitioner instituted any proceedings before this Court or any other forum in respect of the seized gold bar between 06.12.2020 and 2025. The Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023 was also not challenged by the Petitioner before the statutory appellate authority.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
10. Contentions of the Petitioner
10.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the detention of the gold bar could not have continued beyond the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act in the absence of a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act. Reliance has been placed, inter alia, upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024, decided on 11.09.2025, as also upon the judgment of this Court in Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. Learned counsel also disputed the genuineness and legal character of the statement dated 06.12.2020 and contended that the same cannot constitute a valid waiver of the statutory requirement of a show cause notice or personal hearing.
10.2. It was further contended that the document relied upon by the Respondent as the Petitioner‟s statement under Section 108 of the Act was a pre-typed document which was not in the Petitioner‟s handwriting. It was contended that the Petitioner was made to sign documents without properly explaining their contents and that the CCTV footage would demonstrate the circumstances in which the document was signed. It was also contended that even if the said document is treated as a statement under Section 108 of the Act, it could not amount to a waiver of the mandatory requirements of Section 124 of the Act. The Petitioner has also questioned the findings in the Order-in-Original concerning the alleged Green Channel violation and his entitlement to import the gold.
11. Contentions of the Respondent
11.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner had voluntarily tendered his statement on 06.12.2020 and expressly stated that he did not require a show cause notice and that the matter could be decided on merits. It was further submitted that the Petitioner did not respond to the subsequent communications and the public notice issued in respect of the detained/seized goods and did not take any steps for several years. The Order-in-Original was thereafter passed on 07.06.2023. It was submitted that the present Petition, instituted only in 2025, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as on account of the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Act.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.
13. The present Petition was instituted seeking release of the gold bar detained from the Petitioner on 06.12.2020. The record, however, discloses that the adjudication proceedings in respect of the said gold bar had already culminated in an Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023, whereby the gold bar was ordered to be absolutely confiscated and penalty was imposed upon the Petitioner.
14. The grievance raised by the Petitioner is consequently not confined to the continued detention of the goods. The Petitioner also seeks to assail the adjudication culminating in the said Order-in-Original on the ground that no show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act was served upon him, that the statement dated 06.12.2020 could not constitute a valid waiver of the statutory requirement of notice or hearing, and that the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority are otherwise unsustainable.
15. The aforesaid contentions would require examination of the Order-in-Original and the material forming the basis thereof. The parties are at variance with respect to the circumstances in which the statement dated 06.12.2020 was recorded and signed, the legal effect of the statement insofar as it records a purported waiver of show cause notice, the communications allegedly issued to the Petitioner thereafter, and the circumstances in which the adjudication proceedings were conducted. The Petitioner has also questioned the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority concerning the alleged Green Channel violation and the import of the gold.
16. These issues ought not to be examined for the first time in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, particularly when the Act provides a specific appellate remedy against an order of adjudication. Section 128 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against a decision or order passed by an officer of Customs lower in rank than a Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs.
17. It is well settled that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not operate as an absolute bar upon the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, the rule requiring exhaustion of an efficacious alternative remedy is a well-recognised principle governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The present case does not warrant departure from that principle. The Petitioner‟s allegations regarding non-service of notice and denial of hearing would require examination of the adjudication record, including the statement relied upon by the Respondent and the subsequent communications/public notice. The delay of several years in approaching this Court, despite the Petitioner‟s admitted knowledge of the seizure of the gold bar, is an additional circumstance which weighs against exercise of the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
18. The judgments relied upon by the Petitioner, including Jatin Ahuja (supra) and Shubhangi Gupta (supra), do not require this Court to examine the concluded adjudication proceedings in the present writ petition, particularly when the Order-in-Original is amenable to statutory appeal.
19. Quite apart from the availability of the statutory remedy, the present Petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches. The Petitioner was admittedly aware of the seizure of the gold bar on 06.12.2020. The record further shows that a public notice was issued by the Customs authorities calling upon the concerned passengers to approach the Department in respect of detained/seized valuable goods within the stipulated period, failing which further process for disposal would be initiated. The Petitioner did not approach the Department pursuant to the said notice. The adjudication proceedings thereafter culminated in the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023, yet the Petitioner did not challenge the said order before the statutory appellate authority or approach this Court until the filing of the present Petition in 2025. No satisfactory explanation for this prolonged inaction has been furnished.
20. In view of the foregoing, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine, for the first time, the validity of the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023. The Petitioner was aware of the seizure of the gold bar on 06.12.2020, did not take any steps in respect thereof for several years, and did not challenge the Order-in-Original before the statutory appellate authority. The present Petition, instituted only in 2025, consequently suffers from unexplained delay and laches. The availability of a statutory appellate remedy against the Order-in-Original is an additional circumstance which weighs against the exercise of writ jurisdiction in the facts of the present case.
CONCLUSION
21. Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Petitioner‟s challenge to the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023, including his contentions concerning Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, the alleged waiver of show cause notice or personal hearing, the statement dated 06.12.2020, the alleged Green Channel violation, and the confiscation and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority.
22. The Petition, along with all pending applications, if any, stands disposed of in the above terms.
