Saiyyada Khatoon 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. DLHC010001222026
+ W.P.(C) 102/2026
SAIYYADA KHATOON .....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. Akash Verma, SSC- CBIC
with Ms. Aanchal Uppal, Adv.

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 unconditional release of
the gold bar weighing 100 grams, detained/seized on 19.12.2023, on
the ground that no written show-cause notice was issued within the
period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 [„the
Act‟], notwithstanding the Respondent‟s assertion that an oral show-
cause notice was issued on the date of detention and that the Petitioner
had expressly stated that she did not require a show-cause notice or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:56:45
W.P.(C) 102/2026 Page 1 of 11

personal hearing.
2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to
the Respondent to release one gold bar weighing 100 grams,
detained/seized vide Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/19-12-
2023/003353 dated 19.12.2023, and further seeks a direction that no
detention/warehouse charges be recovered from her 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 Indira Gandhi
International Airport, New Delhi on 19.12.2023 by Flight No. 6E-
0195. The Petitioner had travelled to Saudi Arabia for Umrah. Upon
her arrival, she was intercepted by the Customs authorities after she
had crossed the Green Channel.
5. A Detention Receipt bearing No. DR/INDEL4/19-12-
2023/003353 was issued on 19.12.2023. The receipt records, inter
alia , that one plastic cut bottle containing one yellow bar, having the
marking “ 100 grams fine gold 999.9 ”, appearing to be made of gold,
had been detained/seized. The reason recorded in the receipt is “ Green
Channel Violation ”. The Detention Receipt further records the weight
of the gold bar as 100 grams. It also bears the signature of the
Petitioner and records, inter alia , that the articles listed therein were
correct and that the article had been detained at her request and sealed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:56:45
W.P.(C) 102/2026 Page 2 of 11

in her presence over her signature.
6. On the same date, i.e. 19.12.2023, a statement of the Petitioner
was recorded under Section 108 of the Act. In the said statement, the
Petitioner stated that she admitted omission and commission on her
part and that she would agree with the description, quantity and value
as assessed by the Customs Department. She further stated that she
was ready to pay the Customs duty along with fine and penalty, as
applicable. Significantly, the statement also records the following:
“ I also do not need any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing in the
matter. ”
7. The Respondent has placed on record a tabulated statement of
the cases in which the goods were detained/seized. In respect of the
present Petitioner, the said chart records the date of detention as
19.12.2023, the Detention Receipt as DR No. 3353 dated 19.12.2023,
the voluntary statement under Section 108 as having been recorded on
19.12.2023, and specifically records that the Petitioner admitted
omission and commission on her part, agreed to pay Customs duty
with fine and penalty and stated that she did not require a show-cause
notice or personal hearing. More importantly, the Respondent‟s chart
separately records the date of oral show-cause notice under the
proviso to Section 124 of the Act as 19.12.2023. It is also not the
Respondent‟s case that any Order-in-Original has been passed as yet.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
8. Contentions of the Petitioner
8.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:56:45
W.P.(C) 102/2026 Page 3 of 11

requirement of issuing a show-cause notice under Section 124 of the
Act is mandatory and that the same cannot be dispensed with merely
on the basis of an alleged waiver contained in the statement recorded
under Section 108 of the Act.
8.2. It was further submitted that the first proviso to Section 124
permits the notice referred to in clause (a), as well as the
representation referred to in clause (b), to be oral only at the request of
the person concerned. According to the Petitioner, there is nothing on
record to establish that she had made any such request. It was,
therefore, submitted that the alleged oral show-cause notice cannot be
treated as a valid notice for the purposes of Section 110(2) of the Act.
8.3. It was contended that the statement relied upon by the
Department cannot be treated as a valid statement under Section 108
of the Act, as it is not in the Petitioner‟s handwriting and, according to
the Petitioner, was prepared by the Customs officials and merely made
to be signed by her. The Petitioner also alleges that the contents were
not properly explained to her and that the statement was not voluntary.
8.4. 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 submit that the consequence of
non-issuance of notice within the statutory period prescribed under
Section 110(2) is that the seizure ceases to operate and the goods are
liable to be returned.
9. Contentions of the Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:56:45
W.P.(C) 102/2026 Page 4 of 11

9.1. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that
the Petitioner‟s own statement dated 19.12.2023 constitutes a
voluntary admission regarding the contravention. It is submitted that
the Petitioner expressly stated that she did not require a show-cause
notice or personal hearing and agreed to pay the applicable Customs
duty, fine and penalty. It was further submitted that an oral show-
cause notice was issued on 19.12.2023 under the first proviso to
Section 124 of the Act.
9.2. It was accordingly submitted that the foundation of the
Petitioner's case, namely, that no notice was issued within the
statutory period, is factually incorrect. It is submitted that the Petition
essentially seeks adjudication of disputed questions concerning the
circumstances in which the statement was recorded and the nature of
the proceedings conducted on 19.12.2023, which exercise ought not to
be undertaken in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.
11. At the outset, it is necessary to notice the statutory scheme.
Section 110(1) of the Act empowers the proper officer to seize goods
where he has reason to believe that the goods are liable to
confiscation. Section 110(2) provides that where goods are seized
under Section 110(1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under
clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure, the goods
shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:56:45
W.P.(C) 102/2026 Page 5 of 11

seized. The first proviso permits 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
concerned before expiry of the original period.
12. The legal position regarding the consequence of failure to issue
the requisite notice within the statutory period has been authoritatively
considered by the Supreme Court in Jatin Ahuja (supra). The
Supreme Court affirmed that the time-limit prescribed under Section
110(2) is mandatory and that, in the absence of the requisite notice
within the prescribed or duly extended period, the statutory
consequence of return of the seized goods follows. The Supreme
Court also clarified that the time period contemplated under Section
110(2) concerns the notice under Section 124(a), and that Sections
110(2) and 124 operate in distinct fields.
13. There can, therefore, be no dispute with the proposition that
where there is no notice under Section 124(a) within the period
contemplated by Section 110(2), the statutory consequence cannot be
defeated by continued retention of the seized goods by the Customs
authorities.
14. The question in the present case, however, is somewhat
different. The Petitioner‟s entire case proceeds on the premise that no
show-cause notice was issued. The Respondent, on the other hand, has
specifically asserted that an oral show-cause notice was issued on
19.12.2023 under the first proviso to Section 124 of the Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:56:45
W.P.(C) 102/2026 Page 6 of 11

15. This distinction is material. The first proviso to Section 124
expressly contemplates that the notice referred to in clause (a), as well
as the representation referred to in clause (b), may, at the request of
the person concerned, be oral. Therefore, the statutory scheme does
not confine a Section 124(a) notice, in every case, to a written
document.
16. This Court is conscious of the decision of this Court in Ms.
Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. , W.P.(C)
10772/2024, decided on 04.11.2024, wherein the Court rejected the
Revenue‟s contention that the statutory notice could simply be
dispensed with on the basis of a purported waiver by the petitioner. In
that case, the Revenue had not asserted in its counter-affidavit that an
oral show-cause notice had actually been issued; rather, the Revenue‟s
contention was that no such notice was required because the petitioner
had waived it. The Court consequently held that, in the absence of a
notice, whether written or oral, Section 124(a) had not been complied
with and also noticed that there was no statutory provision permitting
waiver of the notice.
17. The factual position in the present case is materially different.
Here, the Respondent does not rest its defence merely on the
proposition that the Petitioner waived the requirement of a show-cause
notice. The Respondent has specifically placed on record a chart in
which the date of oral show-cause notice is recorded as 19.12.2023.
Thus, the Respondent‟s case is that the statutory requirement was
complied with by an oral notice, and not merely that the requirement
of notice stood waived.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:56:45
W.P.(C) 102/2026 Page 7 of 11

18. The Petitioner‟s own statement dated 19.12.2023 assumes
significance in this context. The statement records that the Petitioner
admitted the omission and commission on her part, agreed to the
description, quantity and value as assessed by the Customs
Department, expressed her willingness to pay Customs duty along
with fine and penalty, and specifically stated that she did not require a
show-cause notice or personal hearing.
19. This Court does not propose to hold that the mere recording of
the aforesaid statement, by itself, constitutes an oral show-cause
notice under Section 124(a). Such a proposition would not follow
from the statutory language. However, the statement, read together
with the Respondent‟s specific assertion that an oral show-cause
notice was issued on the same date, demonstrates that the factual
foundation of the Petitioner‟s plea of complete absence of notice is
seriously disputed.
20. The Petitioner seeks to overcome this material by alleging that
the statement was prepared by the Customs officials, that she was
made to sign pre-typed papers and blank papers, that its contents were
not explained to her, and that the statement was obtained under
coercion. These allegations are specifically disputed by the record
before this Court. The statement itself contains an express declaration
that it was tendered voluntarily, without duress, pressure or threat, and
that its contents were understood by the Petitioner in vernacular.
21. This Court is not inclined, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, to
conduct a roving factual enquiry into the circumstances in which the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:56:45
W.P.(C) 102/2026 Page 8 of 11

statement was recorded, particularly when the Petitioner seeks to rely
upon CCTV footage and alleges coercion, while the Respondent relies
upon the contemporaneous statement and the proceedings recorded on
19.12.2023. Such an enquiry would necessarily require examination of
evidence and appreciation of disputed factual material.
22. It is also relevant that the Petitioner does not merely seek
enforcement of an admitted statutory right arising from an undisputed
absence of notice. The foundational factual assertion itself, namely,
that no oral show-cause notice was issued, is disputed by the
Respondent. The Respondent has specifically recorded 19.12.2023 as
the date of the oral show-cause notice.
23. In this regard, the decision in Jatin Ahuja (supra) does not
assist the Petitioner beyond the proposition that Section 110(2)
operates mandatorily where the requisite notice under Section 124(a)
has not been issued within the statutory period. The said decision does
not dispense with the necessity of determining, in an appropriate case,
whether a notice contemplated by Section 124(a) was in fact given.
Indeed, the Supreme Court‟s formulation itself proceeds upon the
premise of there being no notice under Section 124(a) within the
prescribed period.
24. In the present case, therefore, the question whether the oral
proceedings conducted on 19.12.2023 constituted compliance with
Section 124(a), including the Petitioner‟s alleged request for oral
proceedings and the nature and contents of the notice communicated
to her, cannot be conclusively determined merely by accepting one
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:56:45
W.P.(C) 102/2026 Page 9 of 11

version of the disputed facts.
25. This Court may also observe that the Petitioner‟s reliance upon
the alleged absence of a personal hearing does not, by itself, lead to
the conclusion that the gold must necessarily be released under
Section 110(2). Section 110(2) is concerned with the issuance of the
notice contemplated by Section 124(a) within the prescribed period.
The statutory consequence under Section 110(2) cannot be invoked
merely by pointing to every subsequent procedural grievance while
leaving unresolved the factual question as to whether the requisite
notice under Section 124(a) was issued.
26. Equally, this Court is not called upon in the present proceedings
to adjudicate whether the Petitioner‟s alleged admission in the
statement dated 19.12.2023 is ultimately sufficient to establish a
contravention of the Act, whether the gold is liable to confiscation, or
what fine or penalty, if any, may be imposed. Those are matters
falling within the domain of the competent Customs authority in
accordance with law.
27. The Petitioner‟s further allegations regarding declaration of the
gold, the alleged altercation with the Customs officers, the alleged
coercion in obtaining her signatures, and the evidentiary value of the
CCTV footage also involve disputed questions of fact. It would
neither be appropriate nor necessary for this Court to return any
finding on those matters while deciding the limited question arising in
the present Petition.
28. This Court also notes that the Respondent‟s own chart records
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:56:45
W.P.(C) 102/2026 Page 10 of 11

that no Order-in-Original has been passed. Consequently, there is no
adjudication order before this Court which can be examined for its
legality or correctness. The present Petition is directed essentially
against the continued detention of the gold and proceeds on the
assertion that the statutory period for issuance of notice has expired.
Since the Respondent specifically asserts that an oral show-cause
notice was issued on 19.12.2023, the Petitioner‟s claim for automatic
release cannot be accepted merely on the basis of the absence of a
written show-cause notice.
29. It is clarified that nothing contained in this judgment shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the ultimate liability of the
Petitioner, the confiscability of the gold, or the validity or evidentiary
value of the statement dated 19.12.2023. Those questions are left open
to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.
CONCLUSION
30. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no ground to issue
the writ of mandamus sought by the Petitioner for unconditional
release of the gold bar.
31. The present Petition is accordingly dismissed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.
SEPTEMBER 02, 2026
sp/pal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:56:45
W.P.(C) 102/2026 Page 11 of 11