Mohammad Umar 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. DLHC010000122026
+ W.P.(C) 42/2026
MOHAMMAD UMAR .....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. Aditya Singla, SSC-CBIC
with Mr. Arya, Mr. Dhananjay
Gautam, Mr. Akhil Sharma,
Ms. Adv Sakshi Chandna and
Mr. Nehaol, 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 1 of 13

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 2 of 13

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 3 of 13

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 4 of 13

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 5 of 13

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 (supra), 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 6 of 13

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 of the Act. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 7 of 13

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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 8 of 13

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 9 of 13

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 10 of 13

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 11 of 13

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 12 of 13

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.


ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

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

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:10:29
W.P.(C) 42/2026 Page 13 of 13