Laxmi Chauhan Vs Commissioner of Customs Airport And General & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: A waiver of the Show Cause Notice could not be done on the basis of a pre filled form and the same being used as a basis for not issuing a Show Cause Notice or not affording a personal hearing, was not permissible. The Court ordered the release of seized jewellery upon payment, despite an earlier confiscation order by Customs authorities.
Held: Assessee had approached the Court after her jewellery comprising one gold chain and two gold bangles weighing around 200 grams was detained by Customs at IGI Airport, New Delhi. The Customs Department later passed an order confiscating the jewellery and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,15,000, relying on a waiver form signed by assessee which, according to them, gave up her right to receive a show cause notice or a personal hearing. Assessee argued that the jewellery was her personal item, gifted by her mother-in-law, and was being worn during travel. They argued that no proper show cause notice was issued and the form relied upon by the department was a pre-filled waiver that assessee did not fully understand. Assessee submitted that such a form could not be treated as a valid waiver of statutory rights under the Customs Act. The Customs Department argued that assessee had voluntarily signed the waiver form and had also expressed willingness to pay the fine and penalty. They claimed that the confiscation and penalty orders were lawfully passed based on that waiver. It was held that a waiver of the right to a show cause notice could not be enforced if it was based on a pre-filled form and not a properly explained or voluntary choice. The court referred to Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs case, which held that legal rights under the Customs Act could not be waived through unsigned or routine documentation lacking clarity or informed consent. The court found that no show cause notice had been issued within the statutory time of one year, and no personal hearing was granted. Considering that assessee had already been allowed to re-export the jewellery upon payment by the Appellate Authority, the court directed the department to release the jewellery after payment of the redemption fine and penalty. Assessee was permitted to collect the jewellery in person or through an authorised representative with proper written confirmation.
