Iqrar Ali vs Commissioner Of Customs
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* 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. DLHC010001232026
+ W.P.(C) 111/2026
IQRAR ALI .....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: Sh. Atul Tripathi, SSC-CBIC
Mr. Akshay Sagar and Mr.
Shubham 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 the Petitioner is entitled to seek release of the gold
detained by the Customs authorities on the ground that the statutory
requirement of issuance of a Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of
the Customs Act, 1962 [the “Act”] was not complied with,
notwithstanding the Respondent’s case that the Petitioner had waived
the requirement of a Show Cause Notice and personal hearing and that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 1 of 13
a Show Cause Notice was subsequently issued within the extended
period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act.
2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks release of
nine gold bars and one gold chain weighing approximately 172 grams,
which were detained by the Customs authorities on 26.02.2025 at the
Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.
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 at the Indira Gandhi International
Airport, New Delhi, from Jeddah on 26.02.2025 by Flight No. SV
756. He opted for the Green Channel. After crossing the Green
Channel, he was intercepted by the Customs authorities. During X-ray
examination of his baggage, nine yellow metal bars and one chain of
yellow metal, appearing to be gold, were recovered. The goods were
detained vide Detention Receipt No. 36069 dated 26.02.2025. The
total weight of the recovered goods was stated to be approximately
172 grams.
5. On 26.02.2025, the Customs authorities also recorded a
document which the Respondent relies upon as the statement of the
Petitioner under Section 108 of the Act. According to the Respondent,
the Petitioner stated that the recovered goods did not belong to him,
although he was carrying the same from Jeddah to India. It is further
the Respondent’s case that the Petitioner stated that he had not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 2 of 13
declared the recovered goods and was aware that Customs duty was
payable on the import thereof. The Respondent further relies upon the
said document for contending that the Petitioner had stated that he did
not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing and was willing
to pay the Customs duty, fine and penalty, as applicable.
6. According to the Respondent, neither the Petitioner nor his
authorised representative appeared for appraisement of the detained
goods. The competent authority thereafter, vide approval dated
20.08.2025, granted an extension of a further period of six months for
issuance of the Show Cause Notice under the proviso to Section
110(2) of the Act. According to the Respondent, the extended period
was to expire on 25.02.2026.
7. The Respondent thereafter issued a communication dated
22.01.2026 requiring the Petitioner to appear for appraisement of the
detained goods. According to the Respondent, neither the Petitioner
nor his authorised representative appeared pursuant thereto. The
Customs authorities consequently proceeded with the appraisement on
23.02.2026 in the presence of independent panch witnesses. The
appraisement records the net weight of the gold as 170.6 grams, its
purity as 995 and its assessable value as Rs.14,04,200/-.
8. The Respondent issued Show Cause Notice No.
J.Fft.S./36069/26.02.2025/WH/2025-26 dated 23.02.2026. The Show
Cause Notice records the recovery of nine gold pieces in cylindrical
shape and one broken piece of gold chain having purity of 995, net
weight of 170.6 grams and assessable value of Rs.14,04,200/-. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 3 of 13
notice proposes confiscation of the recovered goods under Sections
111(d), 111(j), 111(l), 111(m) and 111(o) of the Act and imposition of
penalty upon the Petitioner under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA
of the Act.
9. The Petitioner instituted the present Petition on 01.12.2025. At
the time of institution of the Petition, the Respondent had not issued
the Show Cause Notice. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is
that the original period contemplated under Section 110(2) of the Act
had expired without issuance of a Show Cause Notice and that the
extension granted by the competent authority on 20.08.2025 was
invalid. The Petitioner, therefore, contends that the continued
detention of the goods thereafter was impermissible in law. During the
pendency of the present Petition, however, the Respondent issued the
aforesaid Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2026.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
10. Contentions of the Petitioner
10.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the continued
detention of the goods is contrary to the statutory scheme of the Act. It
was contended that the gold was detained on 26.02.2025 and that the
original period of six months contemplated under Section 110(2) of
the Act expired without issuance of a Show Cause Notice.
10.2. It was further submitted that the purported extension of the
period by the competent authority vide approval dated 20.08.2025 is
itself unsustainable. It was contended that the reasons recorded for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 4 of 13
seeking extension merely refer to the Petitioner having not appeared
for appraisement and to the statutory period being due to expire, and
do not disclose the requisite application of mind or sufficient cause for
exercise of the power under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act.
It was also contended that the Petitioner was not duly informed of the
extension as contemplated under the said proviso.
10.3. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja , Civil Appeal No.
3489/2024, decided on 11.09.2025, to contend that the time prescribed
under Section 110(2) of the Act is mandatory and that, upon failure to
issue a Show Cause Notice within the prescribed period, the seized
goods are liable to be returned. The Supreme Court has indeed held
that the statutory consequence contemplated under Section 110(2)
follows where no notice is issued within the prescribed period,
including the validly extended period.
10.4. It was also submitted that the Respondent cannot rely upon the
purported waiver of Show Cause Notice or personal hearing contained
in the document stated to be the Petitioner’s statement under Section
108 of the Act. It was contended that there is no provision in the Act
permitting waiver of the mandatory requirements of Section 124 of the
Act. 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, wherein this Court held that there
is no provision under the Act for waiver of the notice contemplated
under Section 124.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 5 of 13
10.5. Learned counsel further disputed the genuineness and
voluntariness of the document relied upon by the Respondent as the
Petitioner’s statement under Section 108 of the Act. It was submitted
that the document was not in the handwriting of the Petitioner and that
his signatures had been obtained on pre-written or blank papers. It was
also submitted that the CCTV footage would demonstrate the
circumstances in which the document was signed. On this basis, it was
urged that the alleged waiver could not be relied upon for depriving
the Petitioner of the statutory safeguards under Sections 110 and 124
of the Act.
10.6. Learned counsel also sought to contend that even assuming that
an oral Show Cause Notice could be issued under the first proviso to
Section 124 of the Act, the statutory requirement would not stand
satisfied merely by recording a purported waiver. According to
learned counsel, the Department would have to establish that there
was a specific request by the person concerned for an oral Show
Cause Notice and that the grounds on which confiscation and penalty
were proposed were duly communicated.
11. Contentions of the Respondent
11.1. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that
the present Petition is misconceived and premature. It was submitted
that the Petitioner arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on
26.02.2025 and, after opting for the Green Channel, was intercepted
by the Customs authorities, whereupon nine gold bars and one gold
chain were recovered from his possession. It was submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 6 of 13
goods were duly detained vide Detention Receipt No. 36069 dated
26.02.2025 and that the Petitioner’s statement was recorded on the
same date. It was submitted that, in the said statement, the Petitioner
stated, inter alia, that the recovered goods did not belong to him and
also waived the requirement of a Show Cause Notice and personal
hearing.
11.2. It was further submitted that the competent authority, vide
approval dated 20.08.2025, extended the period for issuance of the
Show Cause Notice by a further period of six months under the
proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act. The extended period was to
expire on 25.02.2026.
11.3. It was submitted that the Petitioner did not appear for
appraisement despite being called upon to do so. The Customs
authorities thereafter conducted the appraisement on 23.02.2026 in the
presence of independent panch witnesses and determined the net
weight of the gold as 170.6 grams, with purity of 995 and assessable
value of Rs.14,04,200/-.
11.4. It was further submitted that a Show Cause Notice dated
23.02.2026 was issued to the Petitioner proposing confiscation of the
goods under Sections 111(d), 111(j), 111(l), 111(m) and 111(o) of the
Act and imposition of penalty under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and
114AA of the Act. It was thus contended that the Show Cause Notice
was issued within the extended period available under Section 110(2)
of the Act.
11.5. It was submitted that the Petition was instituted on 01.12.2025,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 7 of 13
at a stage when the extended period under Section 110(2) was still
subsisting. Consequently, on the date of institution itself, no statutory
right to release of the goods had accrued in favour of the Petitioner.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.
13. At the outset, it is necessary to notice the statutory scheme.
Section 110(2) of the Act prescribes the consequence that follows
where goods seized under Section 110(1) are not made the subject
matter of a notice under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of
seizure. The proviso to Section 110(2) empowers the Principal
Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, to extend the said period by a further period
not exceeding six months, subject to the statutory requirement of
informing the person from whose possession the goods were seized
before expiry of the period so specified. The Supreme Court in Jatin
Ahuja (supra) has recognised the mandatory nature of this statutory
consequence.
14. The judgment in Jatin Ahuja (supra) was rendered in a
situation where the statutory period had expired without a notice being
issued within the prescribed period. The Supreme Court held that,
where there is neither a notice within the initial period nor a valid
extension followed by issuance of the notice within the extended
period, the consequence contemplated by Section 110(2) follows. The
Supreme Court also clarified that the statutory time period contained
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 8 of 13
in Section 110(2) and the substantive requirements of Section 124
operate in distinct fields.
15. The factual position in the present case, however, is materially
different.
16. The goods were detained on 26.02.2025. The Respondent relies
upon the approval dated 20.08.2025 whereby the competent authority
extended the period contemplated under Section 110(2) of the Act by
a further period of six months. The extended period was to expire on
25.02.2026. More importantly, the Show Cause Notice was issued on
23.02.2026. Thus, the Show Cause Notice came to be issued before
expiry of the extended period on 25.02.2026.
17. This factual circumstance is decisive for the purpose of the
present Petition. The statutory consequence contemplated by Section
110(2) arises when the requisite notice is not issued within the period
prescribed by that provision, including the period validly extended in
accordance with its proviso. In the present case, the Respondent has
issued the Show Cause Notice before expiry of the extended period.
18. It is significant that the present Petition itself was instituted on
01.12.2025. On that date, the extended period under Section 110(2)
had not expired. Therefore, even on the date when the writ jurisdiction
of this Court was invoked, the Petitioner could not claim that the
statutory period available to the Department for issuance of the Show
Cause Notice had already come to an end. The subsequent issuance of
the Show Cause Notice on 23.02.2026 further removes the very
foundation of the principal relief sought in the Petition, namely,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 9 of 13
release of the goods on the ground that no Show Cause Notice had
been issued within the statutory period.
19. This Court is conscious that the Petitioner has questioned the
validity of the extension dated 20.08.2025. The principal grounds
urged in this regard relate to the sufficiency of the reasons recorded
for seeking extension, the alleged absence of application of mind and
the alleged failure to communicate the extension to the Petitioner.
20. However, in the facts of the present case, it is not necessary for
this Court to undertake an adjudication of these disputed aspects in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The statutory period was extended by
the competent authority on 20.08.2025, i.e. before expiry of the initial
six-month period. The Show Cause Notice was thereafter issued on
23.02.2026, before expiry of the extended period. The Petition was
instituted while the extended period was still running. The Petitioner,
therefore, cannot seek release of the goods merely by relying upon
expiry of the original six-month period while ignoring the extension
granted under the proviso to Section 110(2).
21. The reliance placed upon Jatin Ahuja (supra) is consequently
misplaced. The decision does not lay down that the mere expiry of the
initial period of six months, despite a statutory extension having been
granted, automatically results in release of the seized goods. On the
contrary, the Supreme Court expressly considered the power of
extension under the first proviso to Section 110(2) and held that the
relevant consequence follows where the notice is not issued within the
prescribed extended period.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 10 of 13
22. Equally, the decision in Ms. Shubhangi Gupta (supra) does not
advance the Petitioner’s case at this stage. In that case, the Court was
confronted with a situation where no Show Cause Notice had been
issued and the Revenue sought to contend that the requirement of
notice had been waived. This Court held that there was no provision
under the Act for waiver of the notice prescribed under Section 124
and, in the absence of a notice, directed the consequential relief.
23. The present case stands on a different footing. The Respondent
has, in fact, issued a written Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2026
within the extended period under Section 110(2). Consequently, it is
not necessary for this Court, for deciding the present Petition, to
examine whether the Petitioner had validly waived a Show Cause
Notice or personal hearing in his statement dated 26.02.2025.
24. Similarly, the allegations made by the Petitioner regarding the
manner in which his statement under Section 108 was recorded,
including the allegation that he was compelled to sign pre-written or
blank papers, are disputed questions of fact. These allegations also do
not require consideration for deciding the limited question arising in
the present Petition, particularly when a written Show Cause Notice
has now been issued.
25. The Petitioner shall have the opportunity, in the adjudicatory
proceedings pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2026, to
raise all permissible objections available to him in law and on facts.
Such objections may include the legality of the detention/seizure, the
allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice, the evidentiary value
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 11 of 13
or otherwise of the statement relied upon by the Department, and all
other contentions available to the Petitioner.
26. This Court makes it clear that nothing contained in this
judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits
of the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice or on the
validity, evidentiary value or otherwise of the statement relied upon
by the Respondent. Those matters are to be considered by the
competent adjudicating authority in accordance with law.
27. The submission of the Petitioner that the extension dated
20.08.2025 was granted mechanically also cannot, in the
circumstances of the present case, furnish a ground for granting the
substantive relief sought in this Petition. The challenge raises
questions concerning the circumstances in which the extension was
granted and the communication thereof. These questions can be
considered, if raised in appropriate proceedings, by the competent
authority in accordance with law. This Court does not consider it
appropriate to adjudicate upon them in the present proceedings when
the Show Cause Notice has already been issued within the period for
which the Department claims statutory authority to proceed.
28. It is clarified that the mere fact that the Petitioner has
approached this Court before issuance of the Show Cause Notice does
not confer upon him a right to unconditional release once the statutory
period available to the Department is shown to have remained
operative and the Show Cause Notice has been issued within that
period. The relief under Section 110(2) is consequential upon failure
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 12 of 13
to issue the notice within the statutory period; it is not attracted in the
present factual situation.
CONCLUSION
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground
to direct release of the goods under Section 110(2) of the Act. The
Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2026 was issued before expiry of the
extended period of six months, which was to expire on 25.02.2026.
The principal basis on which the present Petition seeks release of the
detained goods, therefore, does not survive.
30. The present Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
31. It is, however, clarified that the Petitioner shall be at liberty to
avail all remedies available to him in the proceedings pursuant to the
Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2026. The competent adjudicating
authority shall consider the Petitioner’s objections, if any,
independently and in accordance with law, without being influenced
by any observation made in the present judgment on the merits of the
allegations.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
SHAIL JAIN, J.
SEPTEMBER 02, 2026
sp/pal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:00:03
W.P.(C) 111/2026 Page 13 of 13