Mohammad Nawab Khan Thro His Wife Fareeeda Begum vs Commissioner Of Customs

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 19.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 02.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 02.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010959202025
+ W.P.(C) 18202/2025
MOHAMMAD NAWAB KHAN THRO HIS WIFE
FAREEEDA BEGUM .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Ashutosh, Ms. Fatima, Mr.
Rohit Swarup, Mr. Dalip Singh,
Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh, Mr.
Pravej Hasan, Mr. Abhijeet
Sagar, Mr. S.Vijaykanth, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, SSC with
Mr. Suraj Shekhar Singh, Mr.
Hasan Haider and Mr. Anish
Mishra, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present
Petition is whether this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, ought to examine
the Petitioner's challenge to the Order-in-Original dated 15.04.2024,
when the said order is amenable to challenge before the statutory
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:53:06
W.P.(C) 18202/2025 Page 1 of 8

appellate authorities under the Customs Act, 1962 [‘the Act’].
2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks, inter alia ,
quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 15.04.2024 whereby the gold
bar weighing 117 grams, which had been detained by the Customs
Authorities, was absolutely confiscated. The Petitioner also seeks
release of the said gold bar and waiver of the detention/warehouse
charges.
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 arrived in India carrying a gold bar weighing 117
grams. The said gold bar was detained by the Customs Authorities
vide Detention Receipt No. 3635 dated 28.01.2024.
5. The Respondent asserts that, during the course of proceedings, a
statement of the Petitioner was recorded under Section 108 of the
Customs Act, 1962. The Respondent relies upon the said statement to
contend that the Petitioner admitted that the gold bar had not been
declared before the Customs Authorities and further stated that he did
not require a Show Cause Notice or a personal hearing.
6. The Respondent further asserts that an oral Show Cause Notice
was issued to the Petitioner under the proviso to Section 124 of the
Customs Act, 1962. The chart placed on record by the Respondent
records the date of the alleged oral Show Cause Notice as 27.01.2024.
It is further stated that, vide a communication dated 02.02.2024, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:53:06
W.P.(C) 18202/2025 Page 2 of 8

Petitioner requested waiver of the Show Cause Notice and personal
hearing.
7. The gold bar was thereafter appraised on 02.02.2024. The
adjudicating authority ultimately passed the Order-in-Original dated
15.04.2024, whereby the gold bar weighing 117 grams was ordered to
be absolutely confiscated.
8. The Petitioner has thereafter approached this Court by way of
the present Petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
9. Contentions of the Petitioner
9.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that no valid Show
Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner prior to the confiscation of
the gold bar. It is contended that the document relied upon by the
Respondent as a statement under Section 108 of the Act cannot be
treated as a valid statement recorded in accordance with law. It was
further contended that the Petitioner was made to sign documents
without being informed of their contents and that the alleged waiver of
the Show Cause Notice and personal hearing cannot dispense with the
mandatory requirements of Section 124.
9.2. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Ms.
Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. , W.P.(C)
10772/2024, decided on 04.11.2024, to contend that the requirement
of a Show Cause Notice under Section 124 cannot be dispensed with
merely on the basis of an alleged waiver by the person concerned.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:53:06
W.P.(C) 18202/2025 Page 3 of 8

Further reliance was also placed upon various decisions concerning
the manner in which statements under Section 108 are required to be
recorded and the principles of natural justice applicable to
confiscation proceedings.
10. Contentions of the Respondent
10.1. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that
the Petition is not liable to be entertained in exercise of the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, particularly since the
adjudication proceedings have culminated in the Order-in-Original
dated 15.04.2024. It was submitted that the Act provides a complete
statutory mechanism for challenging such an order. It was further
submitted that the factual assertions made by the Petitioner regarding
the circumstances in which his statement was recorded, the alleged
coercion and the alleged non-issuance of an oral Show Cause Notice
are matters which can appropriately be examined by the statutory
appellate authority.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
11. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.
12. At the outset, it is necessary to notice that the present Petition is
directed against an Order-in-Original dated 15.04.2024 passed by the
competent adjudicating authority under the Act. The grievance of the
Petitioner, therefore, is no longer confined to a mere apprehension of
coercive action or continued detention of the goods without
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:53:06
W.P.(C) 18202/2025 Page 4 of 8

commencement or conclusion of adjudication proceedings. The
adjudication proceedings have culminated in a reasoned order,
whereby the goods in question have been ordered to be confiscated.
13. The Act provides a statutory appellate mechanism against an
order passed by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the
Petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy available to him for
assailing the Order-in-Original, including on questions relating to the
legality of the confiscation, compliance with the requirements of
Section 124, appreciation of the statement allegedly recorded under
Section 108 of the Act, and the other factual and legal issues sought to
be raised in the present Petition
14. It is well settled that the existence of an alternative statutory
remedy does not constitute an absolute bar to the exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The rule requiring
exhaustion of an efficacious alternative remedy is a rule of self-
imposed restraint and discretion. The Supreme Court in Whirlpool
Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. , (1998) 8
SCC 1, has recognised that the High Court may nevertheless exercise
its writ jurisdiction in appropriate cases, including where there is a
violation of principles of natural justice, where the order or
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, or where the vires of a
legislation is under challenge.
15. The fact that the Petitioner has characterised his challenge as
one involving violation of principles of natural justice does not, by
itself, require this Court to entertain the Petition notwithstanding the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:53:06
W.P.(C) 18202/2025 Page 5 of 8

availability of a statutory appeal. The Court has to examine the nature
of the grievance and the circumstances of the case.
16. In the present case, the Petitioner’s challenge to the Order-in-
Original involves, inter alia , questions as to whether the statement
relied upon by the Customs Authorities was voluntarily made;
whether it was duly recorded under Section 108 of the Act; whether an
oral Show Cause Notice was in fact given; what was communicated to
the Petitioner before the confiscation proceedings were concluded;
and whether the Petitioner’s statement and subsequent communication
constituted a conscious relinquishment of the opportunity of personal
hearing.
17. These questions cannot be divorced from the factual record of
the adjudication proceedings. In particular, the rival contentions
regarding the circumstances in which the statement was recorded and
the precise nature of the communication made to the Petitioner would
require examination of the contemporaneous record. Such an exercise
is more appropriately undertaken in the statutory appellate
proceedings, where the entire adjudication record would be available
for consideration.
18. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the present case does
not warrant exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court
at this stage. The mere assertion that the impugned Order-in-Original
has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice cannot, in the
facts of the present case, be treated as sufficient to bypass the statutory
appellate remedy, particularly when the grievance itself raises
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:53:06
W.P.(C) 18202/2025 Page 6 of 8

disputed questions concerning the factual compliance with the
procedure prescribed under the Act.
19. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the
Petitioner’s challenge to the Order-in-Original dated 15.04.2024. In
particular, this Court has expressed no opinion on the validity or
otherwise of the statement allegedly recorded under Section 108 of the
Customs Act, 1962, the alleged oral Show Cause Notice, the alleged
waiver of Show Cause Notice or personal hearing, the applicability of
the judgment in Ms. Shubhangi Gupta (supra), or the legality of the
confiscation of the gold bar.
20. All such contentions are left open to be urged by the Petitioner
before the competent statutory appellate authority. The appellate
authority shall consider the same independently and in accordance
with law, without being influenced by any observation contained in
the present judgment.
CONCLUSION
21. In view of the above, the present Petition is disposed of with
liberty to the Petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available under
the Customs Act, 1962 against the Order-in-Original dated
15.04.2024.
22. If the Petitioner avails the statutory remedy within a period of
four weeks from today, the competent appellate authority shall
consider the question of limitation in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by the time spent by the Petitioner in pursuing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:53:06
W.P.(C) 18202/2025 Page 7 of 8

present proceedings before this Court.
23. Needless to say, if any application seeking condonation of delay
is filed, the same shall be considered by the competent authority in
accordance with law and on its own merits.
24. The present Petition, along with the pending application(s), if
any, stands disposed of in the above terms.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.
SEPTEMBER 02, 2026
sp/pal

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:53:06
W.P.(C) 18202/2025 Page 8 of 8