Mohammad Umar Vs Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court considered whether Mohammad Umar was entitled to unconditional release of two gold bars weighing 233 grams on the ground that the statutory requirements under Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 had not been complied with. The petition also sought waiver of detention or warehousing charges. The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Petitioner had failed to establish an undisputed case of statutory violation warranting a mandamus for release, particularly because the contemporaneous record contained documents bearing his own signatures which materially contradicted his subsequent factual assertions.
The Petitioner had arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Medina on 10.04.2023. Two gold bars, stated to weigh 233 grams and to be of 995 purity, were found in his possession and were detained vide Detention Receipt No. 001633. The receipt described the goods and recorded that they had been “detained at my request and sealed in my presence over my signature”. On the same date, the Petitioner’s statement under Section 108 recorded that he had crossed the Green Channel, had intentionally not declared the gold, understood that Customs duty was leviable beyond the permissible baggage allowance, and was willing to pay Customs duty, fine and penalty. The statement also recorded that he did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing and that it had been tendered voluntarily.
On 08.05.2023, the Petitioner submitted a written request for release. That request stated that he had opted for the Green Channel but had not declared any dutiable item, expressed regret and requested a lenient view. It further recorded: “I undertake that my case may be decided on merit and as such I do not want any written Show Cause Notice and Personal Hearing in the matter. An oral SCN has been received.” No written Show Cause Notice was disputedly issued. The Respondent relied upon these contemporaneous documents to contend that the case could not be treated as one of complete non-compliance with the statutory Show Cause Notice requirements.
The Petitioner argued that Section 110(2) required issuance of a Show Cause Notice within six months of seizure, extendable by another six months under the proviso, and that the maximum period had expired. He contended that an oral Show Cause Notice could not be presumed merely from a purported waiver, that the Section 108 statement could not itself constitute a Show Cause Notice, and that the pre-printed request could not validly waive Section 124 safeguards. He also disputed the voluntariness and correctness of the statement and relied upon alleged CCTV footage to support his claim that he had declared the gold at the Red Channel. Reliance was placed upon Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs and Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja.
The Respondent maintained that the Petitioner’s present case proceeded on a factually incorrect premise. It relied upon the Petitioner’s Section 108 statement and his later written request, both of which recorded that he had crossed the Green Channel without declaring the gold and that he did not require a written Show Cause Notice or personal hearing, while expressly acknowledging receipt of an oral Show Cause Notice. According to the Respondent, the conflicting versions raised disputed questions of fact which could not appropriately be adjudicated in writ proceedings.
The Court accepted the legal proposition that the safeguards contained in Sections 110(2) and 124 are required to be complied with. Relying upon the Supreme Court decision in Jatin Ahuja, the Court recognised that the period prescribed under Section 110(2) for issuance of the notice contemplated by Section 124(a) is mandatory. It also recognised the Delhi High Court’s position in Ms. Shubhangi Gupta that a mere pre-printed form recording that a passenger does not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient compliance with Section 124.
However, the Court distinguished the present factual situation. The issue was not whether a passenger could simply sign a standard printed form and extinguish statutory safeguards, but whether the Petitioner had established a clear case of statutory non-compliance warranting extraordinary relief. The Court attached significance to the contemporaneous record. The Petitioner’s assertion that he had declared the gold at the Red Channel was materially at variance with his signed statement dated 10.04.2023 and his signed written request dated 08.05.2023. The latter was submitted almost a month after the alleged incident and contained an admission of having opted for the Green Channel without declaring dutiable goods, an expression of regret, a statement that no written Show Cause Notice or personal hearing was required, and an acknowledgement that an oral Show Cause Notice had been received.
The Court held that the Petitioner’s explanation that he had been coerced into signing the documents was itself a disputed factual assertion. There was no contemporaneous retraction of the 10.04.2023 statement, and the 08.05.2023 request did not allege that the earlier statement had been forcibly obtained or was incorrect. The subsequent claim of Red Channel declaration therefore raised a disputed question of fact which could not be satisfactorily adjudicated under Article 226. The Court likewise declined to examine the alleged CCTV footage because doing so would require appreciation of evidence and determination of disputed factual issues.
The Court further held that Jatin Ahuja did not advance the Petitioner’s case merely on the basis of his assertion that there had been no notice whatsoever. The Respondent relied upon the Petitioner’s written acknowledgement of an oral Show Cause Notice and his earlier statement that he did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. The Court noted that the first proviso to Section 124 permits the notice contemplated by clause (a) and the representation contemplated by clause (b) to be oral at the request of the person concerned, while emphasising that the requirement cannot be reduced to a mechanical or pre-printed waiver.
The Court nevertheless refused to approve any general departmental practice of mechanically obtaining pre-printed waivers. Its dismissal rested on the particular factual record. The Petitioner had failed to explain why his own later written request specifically acknowledged receipt of an oral Show Cause Notice and simultaneously admitted that he had opted for the Green Channel without declaration. The Detention Receipt also recorded that the goods had been detained at his request and sealed in his presence over his signature.
The Court clarified that the petition involved broader disputed allegations, including alleged false implication, alleged Red Channel declaration, coercion and fabrication or unreliability of departmental documents. These matters required appreciation of evidence and could not be conclusively determined in the writ proceedings. Importantly, the Court did not approve any mechanical waiver practice under Section 124 and reiterated that statutory requirements must be complied with in accordance with law. It also expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the Petitioner’s ultimate liability to confiscation or penalty and had expressed no final opinion on whether the gold bars were liable to confiscation.
Accordingly, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the petition. The dismissal, however, was clarified not to preclude the Petitioner from pursuing remedies available in law before the competent Customs authority or any other appropriate forum.
Cases Discussed
- Union of India & Ors. Vs Jatin Ahuja — Supreme Court; Section 110(2) time limit and Section 124 notice requirements.
- Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. — Delhi High Court; pre-printed waiver and Section 124 safeguards.
- Amit Kumar Vs Commissioner of Customs — Delhi High Court; Show Cause Notice and waiver issue.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a direction for release of two gold bars weighing 233 grams, on the ground that the statutory requirements under Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 [the “Act”] have not been complied with, when the contemporaneous record contains the Petitioner’s own statement under Section 108 of the Act and a subsequent written request acknowledging receipt of an oral Show Cause Notice and requesting that the matter be decided on merits.
2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction for unconditional release of the aforesaid gold bars and further prays that no detention or warehousing charges be recovered from him at the time of release.
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, from Medina by Flight No. SV 758 on 10.04.2023. Two gold bars, totally weighing 233 grams and stated to be of 995 purity, were found in his possession. The goods were detained vide Detention Receipt No. 001633 dated 10.04.2023.
5. The Detention Receipt describes the goods as “One Transparent Plastic bottle containing 02 gold bars total weighing 233 grams purity 995, wrapped with customs tape & plier having no impression”. The Detention Receipt further records that the goods “have been detained at my request and sealed in my presence over my signature”. The receipt bears the signature of the Petitioner as well as the signatures of the concerned Customs officials.
6. On the same date, i.e. 10.04.2023, a statement of the Petitioner was recorded under Section 108 of the Act. The Petitioner is recorded as having stated that he had been intercepted by the Customs officer after crossing the Green Channel and that the gold bars were recovered from his possession during DFMD and X-Ray examination of his baggage. The said statement further records that the gold belonged to the Petitioner and had been carried by him from Medina. The Petitioner is also recorded as having stated that he was aware that Customs duty was leviable on the import of gold over and above the permissible baggage allowance; that he had intentionally not declared the recovered gold; that he agreed with the description, quantity and value to be assessed by the Department; and that he was ready to pay Customs duty, fine and penalty as applicable.
7. Significantly, the statement further records that the Petitioner did not require any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing in the matter. It also records that the statement was tendered by him voluntarily, without any duress, pressure or threat, after being understood by him in the vernacular.
8. Thereafter, on 08.05.2023, the Petitioner submitted a written request for release of the detained goods. A second Detention Receipt bearing No. 23597 dated 08.05.2023 was also issued after appraisement.
9. The written request dated 08.05.2023 is of considerable significance. In the said request, the Petitioner records that he had “opted for Green Channel but did not declare any dutiable item” which he had brought with him. He further states that he regretted his mistake and requested the Department to take a lenient view. The said request also contains the following declaration:
“I undertake that my case may be decided on merit and as such I do not want any written Show Cause Notice and Personal Hearing in the matter. An oral SCN has been received.”
10. The Respondent has also placed on record a Special Power of Attorney dated 13.04.2023 authorising the Petitioner’s representative to appear before the Customs authorities on his behalf.
11. It is not disputed that no written Show Cause Notice has been issued to the Petitioner. The Respondent, however, relies upon the aforesaid contemporaneous documents and submits that the Petitioner’s case cannot be examined on the assumption that there was no compliance whatsoever with the requirements relating to Show Cause Notice, particularly when the Petitioner’s own written request acknowledges receipt of an oral Show Cause Notice.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
12. Contentions of the Petitioner
12.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Section 110(2) of the Act mandates issuance of a Show Cause Notice within six months from the date of seizure, subject to a further extension of six months in accordance with the proviso thereto. It was submitted that even the maximum period of one year has expired and, consequently, the continued detention of the gold bars is impermissible.
12.2. It was submitted that an oral Show Cause Notice cannot be presumed merely because the Petitioner is stated to have waived a written Show Cause Notice. According to learned counsel, Section 124 of the Act requires the person concerned to be informed of the grounds on which confiscation of the goods or imposition of penalty is proposed.
12.3. It was further submitted that the statement under Section 108 of the Act cannot be treated as a Show Cause Notice. Learned counsel also disputes the voluntariness and correctness of the said statement and submits that the Petitioner was made to sign documents prepared by the Department. It was contended that the CCTV footage of the relevant events would demonstrate that the Petitioner’s case of declaration of the gold at the Red Channel was correct.
12.4. It was further submitted that the pre-printed request dated 08.05.2023 cannot constitute a valid waiver of the statutory requirements under Section 124 of the Act. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgments of this Court, including Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. and Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs and, also 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.
13. Contentions of the Respondent
13.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner’s case proceeds on a factually incorrect premise. It was submitted that the contemporaneous record demonstrates that the Petitioner had crossed the Green Channel without declaring the gold bars and had thereafter voluntarily admitted the same in his statement under Section 108 of the Act.
13.2. Relies was placed upon the written request dated 08.05.2023 submitted by the Petitioner himself. It was submitted that the Petitioner not only stated therein that he had opted for the Green Channel without declaring the dutiable goods, but also expressly recorded that he did not want a written Show Cause Notice or personal hearing and that an oral Show Cause Notice had been received.
13.3. It was, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner’s present plea that he had declared the gold at the Red Channel, that the documents were forcibly obtained from him and that there was complete non-compliance with the statutory procedure raises disputed questions of fact. Such questions, according to learned counsel, cannot be adjudicated in the present writ proceedings.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
14. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.
15. At the outset, this Court may observe that there can be no quarrel with the proposition that the statutory safeguards contained in Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Act are required to be complied with. The Supreme Court, in Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024, decided on 11.09.2025, has held that the period prescribed under Section 110(2) for issuance of the notice contemplated by Section 124(a) is mandatory and that, in the absence of such notice within the prescribed period, the statutory consequence contemplated under Section 110(2) follows. The Supreme Court has also clarified that the time period under Section 110(2) and the substantive requirements of Section 124 operate in distinct fields.
16. Equally, this Court has held that a mere pre-printed form recording that a passenger does not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient compliance with Section 124 of the Act. In Ms. Shubhangi Gupta (supra), this Court rejected the Revenue’s contention that the statutory requirement stood satisfied merely because an oral Show Cause Notice was asserted and the passenger was stated to have waived the requirement. The Court noted, inter alia, that there is no provision for waiver of the notice prescribed under Section 124.
17. The aforesaid principles, however, cannot be applied in isolation from the peculiar factual matrix of the present case. The question before us is not whether a passenger can, by merely signing a standard printed form, extinguish the statutory requirements under Sections 110(2) and 124. The question is whether, on the material placed before us, the Petitioner has established a clear case of statutory non-compliance warranting the extraordinary relief of release sought in the present Petition.
18. In this regard, the contemporaneous record assumes significance.
19. The Petitioner’s case in the present Petition is that he had declared the two gold bars at the Red Channel and that, despite such declaration, the goods were illegally detained/seized. He further alleges that the Customs officials made him sign pre-written documents and blank papers and that the statement relied upon by the Department is a false document.
20. This assertion, however, is materially at variance with the Petitioner’s own contemporaneous documents.
21. First, the statement dated 10.04.2023, which bears the Petitioner’s signature, records that he was intercepted after crossing the Green Channel and that he had intentionally not declared the gold bars. The statement further records his willingness to pay Customs duty, fine and penalty and his statement that he did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing.
22. Secondly, and more significantly, on 08.05.2023, almost a month after the alleged incident, the Petitioner submitted a written request bearing his signature. In this request, he himself stated that he had opted for the Green Channel but had not declared any dutiable item. He expressed regret for his mistake and requested that the Department take a lenient view. He further recorded that he did not want a written Show Cause Notice or personal hearing and that an oral Show Cause Notice had been received.
23. Thus, this is not a case where the Department relies solely upon a subsequently prepared departmental record to assert waiver of statutory safeguards. There are contemporaneous documents bearing the Petitioner’s own signatures, separated in time by almost a month, which materially contradict the factual foundation of the present Petition.
24. The Petitioner’s explanation that he was coerced into signing the documents is a disputed factual assertion. No contemporaneous retraction of the statement dated 10.04.2023 has been brought to our notice. Likewise, the Petitioner did not, in his written request dated 08.05.2023, allege that his earlier statement had been forcibly obtained or that the contents thereof were incorrect. On the contrary, the subsequent request proceeds on the basis that the Petitioner had committed a mistake by opting for the Green Channel and not declaring the dutiable goods.
25. The subsequent assertion that the Petitioner had in fact declared the gold at the Red Channel, therefore, raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
26. This Court is also not persuaded to undertake an examination of the alleged CCTV footage in the present proceedings. The Petitioner seeks, in substance, a finding that the contemporaneous documents relied upon by the Customs Department are false or were obtained by coercion and that the Petitioner had, in fact, declared the gold. Such an exercise would necessarily require appreciation of evidence and determination of disputed questions of fact. The writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily the appropriate forum for undertaking such an evidentiary enquiry.
27. The Petitioner’s reliance upon Jatin Ahuja (supra) does not advance his case to the extent sought. The proposition laid down therein is undoubtedly binding, namely, that where the statutory notice contemplated by Section 124(a) is not given within the period prescribed under Section 110(2), the statutory consequence follows. However, the present case cannot be decided merely by proceeding on the Petitioner’s assertion that there was no notice whatsoever.
28. The Respondent relies upon the Petitioner’s own written acknowledgement dated 08.05.2023 that an oral Show Cause Notice had been received. The Respondent also relies upon the Petitioner’s statement dated 10.04.2023 recording that he did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. Whether these contemporaneous documents, read with the proceedings undertaken by the Customs Department, constitute sufficient compliance with the statutory requirements is a matter which cannot be determined in favour of the Petitioner merely by accepting his subsequent and disputed version of events.
29. This Court is conscious that the first proviso to Section 124 permits the notice contemplated by clause (a) and the representation contemplated by clause (b) to be oral at the request of the person concerned. The requirement cannot, of course, be reduced to a mechanical or pre-printed waiver. This Court has repeatedly cautioned the Customs Department against such a practice. The Customs Department has also been directed in appropriate cases to discontinue reliance upon standard pre-printed waivers and to ensure compliance with the requirements of Section 124.
30. However, the present Petition cannot be allowed merely on the basis of a general challenge to the departmental practice. The particular record before us contains the Petitioner’s subsequent written acknowledgement that an oral Show Cause Notice had been received. The Petitioner has not been able to explain, in a manner capable of being conclusively determined in the present writ proceedings, why such a specific recital was made in his own written request dated 08.05.2023, particularly when that request also contains his admission regarding opting for the Green Channel without declaration.
31. There is another relevant circumstance. The Detention Receipt dated 10.04.2023 records that the goods were “detained at my request and sealed in my presence over my signature”. The Petitioner signed the said receipt. The subsequent request for release also proceeds on the basis of the detention. The statutory consequences relied upon by the Petitioner are therefore sought to be founded upon a factual characterisation of the proceedings which itself is disputed on the record.
32. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner has failed to establish an undisputed case of statutory violation warranting issuance of a mandamus for release of the goods. The Court cannot, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, accept one disputed version of the facts while rejecting the contemporaneous documents relied upon by the Respondent, particularly when some of those documents bear the Petitioner’s own signatures.
33. This Court may also note that the Petitioner’s challenge is not confined to the alleged non-issuance of a Show Cause Notice. He seeks a finding that the Customs officials falsely implicated him, that his declaration at the Red Channel was ignored, that the statement was obtained under coercion, and that the documents relied upon by the Department are fabricated or otherwise unreliable. These are matters requiring appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings.
34. Nothing stated herein shall, however, be construed as approval of any practice whereby a passenger is made to sign a standard form mechanically waiving the statutory safeguards under Section 124 of the Act. The statutory requirements must be complied with in accordance with law. The dismissal of the present Petition follows from the particular factual record and the nature of the relief sought by the Petitioner.
35. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the ultimate liability of the Petitioner to confiscation or penalty, nor have we expressed any final opinion on the question whether the gold bars are liable to confiscation. Those matters, if pending before the competent authority, shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
CONCLUSION
36. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the Petitioner.
37. The Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
38. It is, however, clarified that the dismissal of the present Petition shall not preclude the Petitioner from pursuing such remedies as may be available to him in law before the competent Customs authority or any other appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
