Awesh Karmi Fundreimayum 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. DLHC010001052026
+ W.P.(C) 152/2026
AWESH KARMI FUNDREIMAYUM .....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. Vishal Chadha, Senior
Standing Counsel with Mr.
Chandan Kumar, 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 continued detention of the gold bars seized
from the Petitioner on account of alleged violation of the Green
Channel procedure can be permitted in the absence of a written show
cause notice, when the Respondent-Department asserts that an oral
show cause notice was given to the Petitioner on the date of seizure
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 1 of 14

itself and that the Petitioner had also stated that he did not require a
show cause notice or personal hearing.
2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to
the Respondent to release eight gold bars, collectively weighing 290
grams, detained/seized vide Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/27-
02-2024/003893 dated 27.02.2024. The Petitioner also seeks a
direction that no detention or warehouse charges be recovered from
him at the time of release of the said gold.
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 on 27.02.2024. He had travelled
from Jeddah to Bahrain and thereafter to Delhi. Upon his arrival, he
was intercepted by the Customs authorities after he had crossed the
Green Channel.
5. A Detention Receipt bearing No. DR/INDEL4/27-02-
2024/003893 dated 27.02.2024 was issued, which receipt records that
one cut plastic bottle containing eight yellow metal bars weighing 290
grams, wrapped with Customs tape and sealed with Customs “ BAIGI ”,
had been detained/seized. The reason for detention/seizure was
recorded as “ Green Channel Violation ”.
6. The contemporaneous record further shows that the eight bars
comprised one yellow metal bar bearing the marking “ SUISSE 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 2 of 14

TOLA FINE GOLD 999.9 ”, two yellow metal bars bearing the
marking “ SUISSE 5 TOLA FINE GOLD 999.9 ” and five yellow metal
bars bearing the marking “ SUISSE 1 TOLA FINE GOLD 999.9 ”,
collectively weighing approximately 290 grams.
7. On 27.02.2024, a statement was recorded from the Petitioner
before the Air Customs Superintendent under Section 108 of the
Customs Act, 1962 [the „Act‟]. In the said statement, the Petitioner is
recorded as having stated that he had been intercepted by the Customs
officer after crossing the Green Channel and that the aforesaid articles
had been recovered from him during DFMD examination. The
statement further records that the recovered articles belonged to the
Petitioner and that he admitted his omission and commission. It also
records that the Petitioner was not aware that Customs duty was
payable on the value exceeding the baggage allowance and that he had
intentionally not declared the recovered articles.
8. The said statement further records that the Petitioner would
agree with the description, quantity and value as assessed by the
Department and that he did not require any show cause notice or
personal hearing. The statement concludes with a recording that the
Petitioner had understood the contents thereof in the vernacular and
that the statement had been tendered without duress, pressure or
threat.
9. The Department‟s chart placed on record before this Court
records 27.02.2024 as the date of the oral show cause notice under the
proviso to Section 124 of the Act. The same chart records that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 3 of 14

Petitioner did not appear before the Department for appraisement of
the detained goods. It further records that no Order-in-Original has
been passed in the matter as yet.
10. The present Petition came to be instituted on 07.01.2026.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
11. Contentions of the Petitioner
11.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the continued
detention of the gold bars is contrary to Sections 110(2) and 124 of the
Act. It was submitted that the gold was detained/seized on 27.02.2024
and that no written show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner
within the statutory period of six months or within the further period
of six months contemplated under Section 110(2) of the Act. It was
submitted that the Petitioner cannot be deprived of the statutory
protection under Section 124 merely on the basis of the statement
relied upon by the Department, wherein the Petitioner is stated to have
waived the requirement of a show cause notice and personal hearing.
11.2. It was contended that the proviso to Section 124 permits the
notice contemplated under clause (a) and the representation
contemplated under clause (b) to be oral only at the request of the
person concerned. According to the Petitioner, the statement relied
upon by the Department does not record any request made by him for
an oral show cause notice. It was further submitted that the
Department‟s reliance upon an alleged oral show cause notice is an
attempt to overcome the statutory requirement contained in Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 4 of 14

110(2). It was contended that an oral show cause notice cannot be
treated as a mere formality and must communicate to the person
concerned the grounds on which confiscation or penalty is proposed.
11.3. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court in Ms.
Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. to contend
that a waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing, particularly
when contained in a standard-form document, cannot substitute
compliance with Section 124 of the Act. Further reliance was also
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 upon expiry of the statutory period
contemplated under Section 110(2), in the absence of the requisite
notice under Section 124(a), the seized goods are required to be
returned.
11.4. Learned counsel also disputes the validity and evidentiary value
of the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act. It was
submitted that the document was not voluntarily tendered by the
Petitioner and that the Petitioner was made to sign documents which
had already been prepared. It was further submitted that the Petitioner
has alleged that he was compelled to sign blank papers. It was lastly
submitted that the Petitioner had, in fact, declared the gold before the
Customs authorities and that the allegations of Green Channel
violation are disputed. It was further submitted that the CCTV footage
of the relevant period would demonstrate the circumstances in which
the Petitioner was intercepted and the documents were signed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 5 of 14

12. Contentions of the Respondent
12.1. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that
the present Petition is misconceived and that the Petitioner was
intercepted only after crossing the Green Channel, whereafter the gold
bars were recovered from his possession. It was submitted that the
Petitioner made categorical admissions in his statement under Section
108 of the Act regarding the non-declaration of the gold. It was
contended that the said statement was voluntarily tendered and has
never been retracted by the Petitioner before the Customs authorities.
12.2. It was submitted that the Detention Receipt was issued in the
presence of the Petitioner and that the original Detention Receipt was
handed over to him for compliance with the further procedure. It was
further submitted that the Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to
approach the Department for appraisement and further proceedings,
but he did not appear before the Department for appraisement of the
detained goods.
12.3. It was next submitted that an oral show cause notice was given
to the Petitioner on 27.02.2024 under the proviso to Section 124 of the
Act. It was submitted that the Petitioner had also expressly stated that
he did not require a show cause notice or personal hearing, and
therefore, the Petitioner cannot now rely upon the absence of a written
show cause notice when the statutory scheme expressly permits an
oral show cause notice at the request of the person concerned.
12.4. It was further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the
Petitioner concerning pre-printed waivers are distinguishable since,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 6 of 14

according to the Respondent, the present case involves a specific oral
show cause notice having been given to the Petitioner on the date of
detention itself. It was also submitted that no Order-in-Original has
yet been passed and that the Department is ready and willing to afford
the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter
adjudicate the matter in a time-bound manner.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.
14. At the outset, it is necessary to notice the statutory scheme.
Section 110(2) of the Act 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 seized. The
first proviso permits the Principal Commissioner of Customs or
Commissioner of Customs, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to
extend the period by a further period not exceeding six months,
subject to the person concerned being informed before expiry of the
original period.
15. Section 124, on the other hand, deals with issuance of show
cause notice before confiscation of goods or imposition of penalty.
Clause (a) ordinarily contemplates a notice in writing informing the
person concerned of the grounds on which confiscation or penalty is
proposed. The first proviso, however, expressly provides that the
notice referred to in clause (a), as well as the representation referred to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 7 of 14

in clause (b), may, at the request of the person concerned, be oral.
16. The Supreme Court, in Jatin Ahuja (supra), has authoritatively
explained the effect of Section 110(2). It has held that the time
prescribed under Section 110(2) is mandatory and that, in the absence
of the requisite notice within the prescribed period, the statutory
consequence is return of the seized goods. The Supreme Court has
further clarified that the period prescribed in Section 110(2) concerns
the notice contemplated by clause (a) of Section 124 and that Sections
110 and 124 operate in distinct fields.
17. There can, therefore, be no quarrel with the proposition that the
Department cannot retain seized goods indefinitely by simply
postponing the initiation of adjudication proceedings. Equally, there
can be no dispute that the statutory period prescribed under Section
110(2) has to be respected.
18. However, the controversy in the present case cannot be decided
merely on the basis that no written show cause notice has been issued.
19. The Respondent‟s case, as specifically set out before this Court,
is that an oral show cause notice was issued on 27.02.2024 under the
first proviso to Section 124. The Department has relied upon the
proceedings conducted with the Petitioner on the very date of seizure
and, in particular, upon the statement recorded under Section 108,
which records not only the alleged Green Channel violation and non-
declaration but also the Petitioner‟s statement that he did not require a
show cause notice or personal hearing.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 8 of 14

20. The Petitioner, on the other hand, disputes the voluntary nature
and legal character of the document relied upon by the Department.
He alleges that he was made to sign pre-prepared documents and
blank papers and that the contents were not properly explained to him.
He also disputes that there was any valid oral show cause notice.
21. Thus, the present case is materially different from a case where
the Department itself admits that no show cause notice, whether
written or oral, was ever given. In Shubhangi Gupta (supra), the
Revenue had conceded that no written show cause notice had been
issued and, significantly, the Court found that there was no averment
in the counter affidavit that an oral show cause notice had been issued.
The Court accordingly held that, in the absence of such notice, the
requirements of Section 124(a) had not been satisfied.
22. In the present case, however, the Department has specifically
pleaded and asserted that an oral show cause notice was issued on
27.02.2024. Whether the proceedings conducted on that date
constitute a valid oral show cause notice within the meaning of the
first proviso to Section 124, and whether the Petitioner‟s statement
was voluntarily made, are questions which arise from the factual
circumstances of the case.
23. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate upon the
Petitioner‟s allegations of coercion or the evidentiary value of the
statement recorded under Section 108. The Petitioner has not yet faced
an adjudication order. The question whether the statement was
voluntarily made, whether the alleged admissions can be relied upon,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 9 of 14

whether there was a violation of Section 77 of the Act, whether the
goods are liable to confiscation and whether any penalty is imposable
are matters which fall for consideration in the statutory adjudication
proceedings.
24. This Court is equally not persuaded to accept the Petitioner‟s
contention that the mere fact that the document recording his
statement was not handwritten by him renders the same, at this stage,
a nullity. The evidentiary value and voluntariness of a statement
recorded under Section 108 are matters which can be examined by the
adjudicating authority on the basis of the material available on record
and the explanation furnished by the Petitioner.
25. More importantly, the Petitioner‟s challenge presently proceeds
upon the assumption that there was no show cause notice whatsoever.
That factual premise is specifically disputed by the Respondent. The
Department has placed on record its assertion that an oral show cause
notice was issued on 27.02.2024 and that the Petitioner thereafter did
not participate in the proceedings, including the appraisement of the
goods.
26. The chronology is also relevant. The goods were detained on
27.02.2024. The Petitioner did not approach the Department for
appraisement of the detained goods, as asserted by the Respondent.
No Order-in-Original has yet been passed. The Department, before
this Court, has expressly stated that it is ready and willing to afford the
Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter complete
the adjudication proceedings in a time-bound manner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 10 of 14

27. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
appropriate course would be to permit the statutory adjudication
process to be completed rather than undertake, in the present
proceedings, a fact-finding exercise concerning the circumstances in
which the statement was recorded, the precise nature of the oral
proceedings allegedly conducted on 27.02.2024, the alleged non-
declaration of the gold and the Petitioner's allegations of coercion.
28. It is clarified that the aforesaid conclusion does not amount to
an acceptance of the Respondent‟s submission that a person can waive
the statutory requirement of a show cause notice merely by making a
statement to that effect. Section 124 itself contemplates an oral notice
only in the circumstances specified in its first proviso. Likewise, the
ratio of Jatin Ahuja (supra) regarding the mandatory consequence
flowing from Section 110(2) remains binding.
29. The limited question before this Court is whether, in the factual
circumstances of the present case, the writ court should order
unconditional release of the goods without permitting the adjudicating
authority to examine the competing factual assertions and complete
the statutory proceedings. In our view, the answer must be in the
negative.
30. The Petitioner has an opportunity to appear before the
adjudicating authority, place on record his version regarding the
alleged declaration of the gold, challenge the circumstances in which
the Section 108 statement was recorded, raise his objections regarding
the alleged oral show cause notice and seek consideration of all
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 11 of 14

material relied upon by the Department. The adjudicating authority
shall consider the same independently and in accordance with law.
31. It is also material that the Department has not yet passed an
Order-in-Original. Therefore, the Petitioner‟s challenge to the
evidentiary value of the alleged admission and to the ultimate liability
of the goods to confiscation is premature.
32. This Court is, consequently, of the view that no ground is made
out for issuance of a writ directing unconditional release of the gold
bars at this stage.
33. At the same time, the fact that the goods have remained in the
custody of the Department since 27.02.2024 cannot be overlooked.
The object of Section 110(2), as explained by the Supreme Court in
Jatin Ahuja (supra), is to ensure that seized goods are not retained
indefinitely without commencement and completion of the statutory
process.
34. The Respondent has itself stated before this Court that it is
ready and willing to complete the adjudication proceedings. The said
statement must, therefore, be given effect to.
CONCLUSION
35. For the reasons recorded above, the present Petition is
dismissed. However, the dismissal shall be subject to the following
directions:
i. The Petitioner shall appear before the concerned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 12 of 14

adjudicating authority on 24.09.2026 at 02:30 p.m., for
completion of the pending proceedings, including appraisement
of the seized goods.
ii. The Respondent shall afford the Petitioner a reasonable
opportunity of personal hearing and shall permit him to place on
record his objections, including his objections concerning the
alleged non-declaration of the gold, the circumstances in which
his statement under Section 108 was recorded, and the alleged
oral show cause notice.
iii. The adjudicating authority shall consider the Petitioner‟s
submissions and all material relied upon by the Department and
shall pass an appropriate Order-in-Original within six (06) weeks
from the date on which the Petitioner appears before the
adjudicating authority, subject to the Petitioner extending full
cooperation.
iv. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion
on the merits of the allegations against the Petitioner, the validity
or evidentiary value of the statement recorded under Section 108,
the alleged oral show cause notice, or the question whether the
seized gold is liable to confiscation or whether any penalty is
imposable. All such questions are left open for consideration by
the adjudicating authority in accordance with law.
v. In the event the Petitioner fails to appear or otherwise
does not cooperate with the adjudication proceedings, the
Department shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 13 of 14

36. The question of detention/warehouse charges, as prayed for by
the Petitioner, shall also abide by the outcome of the adjudication
proceedings and the applicable statutory provisions.
37. The Petition, along with pending applications, 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
15:02:51
W.P.(C) 152/2026 Page 14 of 14