Irfan 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. DLHC010828952025
+ W.P.(C) 16386/2025
IRFAN .....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 this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine a
challenge to the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023, whereby the gold
bar weighing 116 grams seized from the Petitioner on 06.12.2020 was
confiscated and penalty was imposed, when the Petitioner approached
this Court only in 2025 after remaining inactive for several years and
the said order is amenable to the statutory appellate remedy under
Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 [„Act‟].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:35:30
W.P.(C) 16386/2026 Page 1 of 9
2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks, inter alia ,
release of the gold bar weighing 116 grams seized from him on
06.12.2020 and consequential reliefs, while also challenging the
adjudication proceedings culminating in the Order-in-Original dated
07.06.2023 on the ground that no show cause notice or effective
opportunity of hearing was afforded to him.
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 06.12.2020 from Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia by Flight No. G8-6716. Upon interception by the Customs
authorities after he had crossed the Green Channel, one yellow metal
bar of “Suisse” brand, weighing 116 grams, was recovered from his
possession. The said gold bar was detained vide Detention Receipt No.
16583 dated 06.12.2020.
5. On the same date, a statement under Section 108 of the Act was
recorded from the Petitioner. In the said statement, the Petitioner is
recorded as having stated, inter alia , that he had been intercepted after
crossing the Green Channel; that the gold bar had been given to him
by his friend and did not belong to him; that he had intentionally
attempted to clear the same through the Green Channel without
payment of customs duty and without declaring it; and that he
admitted his omission and commission. The statement further records
that the Petitioner did not require any show cause notice and that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:35:30
W.P.(C) 16386/2026 Page 2 of 9
case may be decided on merits. It also records that the statement had
been tendered voluntarily, without duress, pressure or threat, and that
its contents had been understood by him in vernacular.
6. Subsequently, the Customs authorities initiated proceedings in
respect of the detained/seized goods. The Respondent has placed on
record communications issued to the concerned passengers as well as
a public notice issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs
(Airport & General), IGI Airport, concerning disposal of
detained/seized valuable goods lying in the warehouse and Disposal
(Valuable) Godown at Terminal-3, IGI Airport. The said public notice
called upon the concerned passengers to approach the Customs
authorities within two weeks of its publication, failing which further
process for disposal of the goods would be initiated. The Petitioner did
not approach the Customs authorities pursuant to the said notice.
7. The adjudication proceedings thereafter culminated in a
common Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023 bearing Issue No.
I/1230745/2023, whereby, inter alia , the gold bar covered by
Detention Receipt No. 16583 dated 06.12.2020 was ordered to be
absolutely confiscated under Section 111 of the Act and penalty was
imposed under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Act.
8. It is the Petitioner‟s case that he was never served with any
show cause notice or notice of hearing and that he came to know of
the Order-in-Original only upon an enquiry made through his counsel
on 26.09.2025. The present Petition was thereafter instituted seeking,
inter alia , release of the gold bar and a direction that no detention or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:35:30
W.P.(C) 16386/2026 Page 3 of 9
warehouse charges be recovered from the Petitioner.
9. The record does not disclose that the Petitioner instituted any
proceedings before this Court or any other forum in respect of the
seized gold bar between 06.12.2020 and 2025. The Order-in-Original
dated 07.06.2023 was also not challenged by the Petitioner before the
statutory appellate authority.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
10. Contentions of the Petitioner
10.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the detention
of the gold bar could not have continued beyond the period prescribed
under Section 110(2) of the Act in the absence of a show cause notice
under Section 124 of the Act. Reliance has been placed, inter alia ,
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, as
also upon the judgment of this Court in Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v.
Commissioner of Customs & Ors . Learned counsel also disputed the
genuineness and legal character of the statement dated 06.12.2020 and
contended that the same cannot constitute a valid waiver of the
statutory requirement of a show cause notice or personal hearing.
10.2. It was further contended that the document relied upon by the
Respondent as the Petitioner‟s statement under Section 108 of the Act
was a pre-typed document which was not in the Petitioner‟s
handwriting. It was contended that the Petitioner was made to sign
documents without properly explaining their contents and that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:35:30
W.P.(C) 16386/2026 Page 4 of 9
CCTV footage would demonstrate the circumstances in which the
document was signed. It was also contended that even if the said
document is treated as a statement under Section 108 of the Act, it
could not amount to a waiver of the mandatory requirements of
Section 124 of the Act. The Petitioner has also questioned the findings
in the Order-in-Original concerning the alleged Green Channel
violation and his entitlement to import the gold.
11. Contentions of the Respondent
11.1. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that
the Petitioner had voluntarily tendered his statement on 06.12.2020
and expressly stated that he did not require a show cause notice and
that the matter could be decided on merits. It was further submitted
that the Petitioner did not respond to the subsequent communications
and the public notice issued in respect of the detained/seized goods
and did not take any steps for several years. The Order-in-Original
was thereafter passed on 07.06.2023. It was submitted that the present
Petition, instituted only in 2025, is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches as well as on account of the availability of
the statutory appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Act.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.
13. The present Petition was instituted seeking release of the gold
bar detained from the Petitioner on 06.12.2020. The record, however,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:35:30
W.P.(C) 16386/2026 Page 5 of 9
discloses that the adjudication proceedings in respect of the said gold
bar had already culminated in an Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023,
whereby the gold bar was ordered to be absolutely confiscated and
penalty was imposed upon the Petitioner.
14. The grievance raised by the Petitioner is consequently not
confined to the continued detention of the goods. The Petitioner also
seeks to assail the adjudication culminating in the said Order-in-
Original on the ground that no show cause notice under Section 124 of
the Act was served upon him, that the statement dated 06.12.2020
could not constitute a valid waiver of the statutory requirement of
notice or hearing, and that the findings recorded by the adjudicating
authority are otherwise unsustainable.
15. The aforesaid contentions would require examination of the
Order-in-Original and the material forming the basis thereof. The
parties are at variance with respect to the circumstances in which the
statement dated 06.12.2020 was recorded and signed, the legal effect
of the statement insofar as it records a purported waiver of show cause
notice, the communications allegedly issued to the Petitioner
thereafter, and the circumstances in which the adjudication
proceedings were conducted. The Petitioner has also questioned the
findings recorded by the adjudicating authority concerning the alleged
Green Channel violation and the import of the gold.
16. These issues ought not to be examined for the first time in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, particularly when the
Act provides a specific appellate remedy against an order of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:35:30
W.P.(C) 16386/2026 Page 6 of 9
adjudication. Section 128 of the Act provides for an appeal to the
Commissioner (Appeals) against a decision or order passed by an
officer of Customs lower in rank than a Principal Commissioner of
Customs or Commissioner of Customs.
17. It is well settled that the existence of an alternative statutory
remedy does not operate as an absolute bar upon the jurisdiction of a
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time,
the rule requiring exhaustion of an efficacious alternative remedy is a
well-recognised principle governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The present case does not warrant departure from that principle. The
Petitioner‟s allegations regarding non-service of notice and denial of
hearing would require examination of the adjudication record,
including the statement relied upon by the Respondent and the
subsequent communications/public notice. The delay of several years
in approaching this Court, despite the Petitioner‟s admitted knowledge
of the seizure of the gold bar, is an additional circumstance which
weighs against exercise of the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this
Court.
18. The judgments relied upon by the Petitioner, including Jatin
Ahuja (supra) and Shubhangi Gupta (supra), do not require this
Court to examine the concluded adjudication proceedings in the
present writ petition, particularly when the Order-in-Original is
amenable to statutory appeal.
19. Quite apart from the availability of the statutory remedy, the
present Petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:35:30
W.P.(C) 16386/2026 Page 7 of 9
Petitioner was admittedly aware of the seizure of the gold bar on
06.12.2020. The record further shows that a public notice was issued
by the Customs authorities calling upon the concerned passengers to
approach the Department in respect of detained/seized valuable goods
within the stipulated period, failing which further process for disposal
would be initiated. The Petitioner did not approach the Department
pursuant to the said notice. The adjudication proceedings thereafter
culminated in the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023, yet the
Petitioner did not challenge the said order before the statutory
appellate authority or approach this Court until the filing of the
present Petition in 2025. No satisfactory explanation for this
prolonged inaction has been furnished.
20. In view of the foregoing, this Court is not persuaded to exercise
its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to
examine, for the first time, the validity of the Order-in-Original dated
07.06.2023. The Petitioner was aware of the seizure of the gold bar on
06.12.2020, did not take any steps in respect thereof for several years,
and did not challenge the Order-in-Original before the statutory
appellate authority. The present Petition, instituted only in 2025,
consequently suffers from unexplained delay and laches. The
availability of a statutory appellate remedy against the Order-in-
Original is an additional circumstance which weighs against the
exercise of writ jurisdiction in the facts of the present case.
CONCLUSION
21. Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed. This Court has
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:35:30
W.P.(C) 16386/2026 Page 8 of 9
not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Petitioner‟s challenge
to the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023, including his contentions
concerning Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, the
alleged waiver of show cause notice or personal hearing, the statement
dated 06.12.2020, the alleged Green Channel violation, and the
confiscation and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority.
22. The Petition, along with all 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
14:35:30
W.P.(C) 16386/2026 Page 9 of 9