Mohd Khalid 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. DLHC010874382025
+ W.P.(C) 16945/2025
MOHD KHALID .....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. Aakarsh Srivastava, Senior
Standing Counsel-Customs
with Mr. Ashish Bansal, Mr.
Anand Pandey, Mr. Ankit
Kumar and Mr. Dhananjay
Parth, 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 issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition
is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
continued detention of the two gold bars weighing 166 grams warrants
interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks release of two
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 1 of 13
gold bars, collectively weighing 166 grams, detained by the
Respondent at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi,
vide Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/10-12-2024/005561 dated
10.12.2024.
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 is an Indian citizen holding Indian Passport No.
Y9692735. The material on record shows that he arrived at Terminal-
3 of the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Saudi
Arabia by Flight No. 6E-64 on 10.12.2024. Upon his arrival, two gold
bars, collectively weighing 166 grams, were detained by the Customs
authorities. The Detention Receipt dated 10.12.2024 records the
description of the detained goods as “2 GOLD BARS WEIGHING
166 GRAMS” contained in one transparent plastic box sealed with
Customs plier and Customs tape. The reason for detention is recorded
as “Green Channel violation”.
5. The Detention Receipt further records that the articles had been
detained at the request of the passenger and sealed in his presence
over his signature. It also contains an instruction to the passenger that
the goods were required to be cleared within two months of detention,
or within such extended period as may be granted by the competent
authority, failing which action for disposal of the goods under the
relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 [„the Act‟] would be
initiated.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 2 of 13
6. On the same date, i.e. 10.12.2024, the Petitioner‟s statement
under Section 108 of the Act was recorded. The said statement records
that the Petitioner had appeared before the Air Customs
Superintendent to tender his “ voluntary statement under Section 108
of the Customs Act, 1962 ” in respect of the goods recovered from him.
The statement records, inter alia , that the Petitioner had been
intercepted after crossing the Green Channel and that the gold bars
were recovered during DFMD and X-ray examination of his baggage.
7. The statement further records that the recovered gold belonged
to the Petitioner‟s brother, that the Petitioner did not possess licit
documents in respect thereof, and that he admitted his “omission and
commission”. It also records that the Petitioner was aware that
Customs duty was payable on import of gold and that he had
“intentionally” not declared the recovered items. The statement further
records that the Petitioner agreed with the description, quantity and
value to be assessed by the Department and was ready to pay Customs
duty, fine and penalty as applicable.
8. Significantly, the statement contains the following recital:
“I also do not need any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing in the
matter.”
The statement concludes with the recital that the Petitioner had
tendered the statement as true and correct, had understood it in
vernacular and had tendered it without duress, pressure or threat.
9. It is an admitted position that no written show cause notice
under Section 124 of the Act has been issued to the Petitioner. It is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 3 of 13
also not disputed that no adjudication order has been passed in respect
of the detained gold bars.
10. The Respondent, however, submits that the aforesaid statement
constituted a voluntary waiver of the show cause notice and personal
hearing and that the Petitioner was, in any event, given subsequent
opportunity to approach the Department for appraisement and further
proceedings. It is also submitted that the Petitioner has never retracted
the statement.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
11. Contentions on behalf of the Petitioner
11.1. It is submitted that the detention of the gold bars cannot
continue indefinitely in the absence of a notice contemplated under
Section 124 of the Act within the period prescribed by Section 110(2).
Reliance has been 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.
11.2. It is submitted that the first proviso to Section 124 permits the
notice contemplated by clause (a), as also the representation
contemplated by clause (b), to be oral only “at the request of the
person concerned”. According to the Petitioner, the statement dated
10.12.2024 does not record any request on his part for an oral show
cause notice. Rather, it merely records that he did not require a show
cause notice or personal hearing. It was, therefore, contended that the
said recital cannot constitute an oral show cause notice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 4 of 13
11.3. It was further submitted that the opportunity mentioned in the
Detention Receipt to approach the Department within two months for
clearance of the goods cannot be equated with a notice under Section
124, which is required to inform the owner/person concerned of the
grounds on which confiscation of the goods or imposition of penalty is
proposed and to afford an opportunity of representation and hearing.
12. Contentions on behalf of the Respondent
12.1. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that
the Petitioner voluntarily admitted the non-declaration of the gold and
expressly waived the requirement of a show cause notice and personal
hearing. It was submitted that the statement under Section 108
constitutes substantive evidence and that the petitioner, despite having
an opportunity to approach the Department, did not do so. Reliance
was also upon the provisions of Sections 77 and 79 of the Act, the
Baggage Rules, 2016, the Foreign Trade Policy and Notification
No.50/2017-Cus. to contend that the Petitioner was not entitled to
import the gold bars in question.
12.2. It was further submitted that the Department is ready and
willing to afford the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and
to 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. The undisputed position is that the Petitioner arrived at the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 5 of 13
Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 10.12.2024 from
Saudi Arabia and that two gold bars, collectively weighing 166 grams,
were detained by the Customs authorities. The Detention Receipt
dated 10.12.2024 records the reason for detention as “Green Channel
violation”. The Petitioner also admittedly signed the Detention
Receipt in token of the detention of the goods.
15. The Petitioner principally relied upon the absence of a written
show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act and contended that,
upon expiry of the period contemplated under Section 110(2) of the
Act, the goods were liable to be released. The Respondent did not
dispute that no separate written show cause notice was issued.
However, its case is that the Petitioner was dealt with under the
statutory scheme applicable to the goods at the time of interception
itself and that an oral show cause notice was given. The Respondent
further relied upon the statement of the Petitioner recorded on
10.12.2024 under Section 108 of the Act.
16. The statement dated 10.12.2024 records that the Petitioner
appeared before the Air Customs Superintendent and tendered his
statement in respect of the goods recovered from him. The Petitioner
is recorded as having stated that he had been intercepted after crossing
the Green Channel and that the two gold bars had been recovered
during DFMD and X-ray examination of his baggage. The statement
further records his admission regarding non-declaration of the goods,
his awareness of the Customs duty payable thereon and his
willingness to pay Customs duty, fine and penalty as applicable.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 6 of 13
17. More importantly, the statement contains an express recital that
the Petitioner “ do[es] not need any Show Cause Notice or personal
hearing in the matter ”. The Petitioner also stated that he had tendered
the statement voluntarily, that it was true and correct, that he had
understood the same in vernacular and that it had been tendered
without duress, pressure or threat.
18. The Petitioner has, in the present proceedings, disputed the
voluntariness and evidentiary value of the aforesaid statement. He has
alleged that he was made to sign typed documents and blank papers
and that the statement was not voluntarily tendered. He has also
sought to rely upon CCTV footage to support his version.
19. In the view of this Court, the aforesaid allegations raise
disputed questions of fact which cannot appropriately be adjudicated
in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Court, in the present proceedings,
is not required to determine whether the Petitioner had in fact declared
the gold bars, whether the statement dated 10.12.2024 was voluntarily
tendered, whether the gold belonged to his brother, or whether the
Petitioner had the requisite intention to evade Customs duty. These are
matters which may appropriately be considered by the competent
adjudicating authority upon the Petitioner being afforded an
opportunity to place his case before it.
20. The Petitioner‟s principal reliance is upon the requirement of a
show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act. Section 124 provides
that no order confiscating goods or imposing penalty shall be made
unless the person concerned is given notice informing him of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 7 of 13
grounds on which confiscation or imposition of penalty is proposed,
an opportunity to make a representation and a reasonable opportunity
of being heard. The first proviso to Section 124 further permits the
notice contemplated under clause (a), as well as the representation
contemplated under clause (b), to be oral at the request of the person
concerned.
21. The Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Jatin Ahuja (supra). There can be no dispute with the proposition
laid down therein that the statutory period prescribed under Section
110(2) cannot be circumvented by the Customs authorities and that the
statutory consequences flowing from failure to issue the requisite
notice within the prescribed period cannot be avoided by resort to a
procedure not sanctioned by the Act.
22. However, the question in the present case is not merely whether
a written show cause notice was issued. The Respondent has
specifically asserted that the proceedings undertaken with the
Petitioner included an oral show cause notice and that the Petitioner
expressly stated that he did not require a written show cause notice or
personal hearing. The Respondent has further stated before this Court
that it is ready and willing to afford the Petitioner an opportunity of
personal hearing and to adjudicate the matter in a time-bound manner.
23. The distinction between the present case and a case where the
Department had neither issued any notice nor undertaken any
proceedings with the passenger is therefore material. The present
matter cannot be decided merely on the basis that a formal written
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 8 of 13
show cause notice is not available on record, without examining the
nature and effect of the proceedings which admittedly took place on
the date of interception.
24. This Court is also conscious of the decision of this Court in
Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. , W.P.(C.)
10772/2024, decided on 04.11.2024, wherein the Court had rejected
the Revenue‟s contention that a mere waiver of show cause notice
could dispense with the requirement of Section 124. In that case, the
Revenue had not asserted, in its counter affidavit, that an oral show
cause notice had actually been issued calling upon the Petitioner to
show cause why the goods should not be confiscated. The Court,
therefore, held that the requirements of Section 124(a) had not been
satisfied.
25. The factual position before this Court is somewhat different. In
the present case, the Respondent has specifically taken the stand that
the Petitioner was dealt with through oral proceedings and that he had
expressly stated that he did not require a show cause notice or
personal hearing. The statement recorded on 10.12.2024 contains the
said recital. Further, the Respondent has not sought to rely upon such
recital to permanently deny the Petitioner an opportunity of being
heard. On the contrary, the Respondent has categorically stated before
this Court that the Petitioner may appear before the competent
authority and that the matter shall be adjudicated after affording him
an opportunity of personal hearing.
26. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 9 of 13
appropriate course would be to permit the statutory adjudication
process to be completed rather than to direct release of the goods at
this stage solely on the ground that no separate written show cause
notice was issued.
27. The statement dated 10.12.2024 also cannot be examined in
isolation from the other contemporaneous material. The Detention
Receipt records the detention of the two gold bars and specifically
informs the passenger that the goods were required to be cleared
within two months, failing which action under the relevant provisions
of the Act would be initiated. The Petitioner admittedly signed the
said receipt. The Respondent further submits that, despite the
opportunity available to him, the Petitioner did not approach the
Department for appraisement or further proceedings.
28. Whether the aforesaid material ultimately constitutes sufficient
compliance with the statutory requirements, and what consequences
should follow from the petitioner's statement and the circumstances in
which the goods were intercepted, are matters which ought to be
examined in the first instance by the competent adjudicating authority.
This Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, would not ordinarily
undertake such an adjudicatory exercise, particularly when the
Department is willing to afford a hearing and pass an appropriate
order in accordance with law.
29. This Court also finds merit in the Respondent‟s submission that
the Petition raises disputed factual questions concerning the manner in
which the goods were brought into India, whether they were declared,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 10 of 13
the circumstances of their recovery and the voluntariness of the
statement attributed to the petitioner. The Petitioner‟s allegations of
coercion and his reliance upon CCTV footage cannot appropriately be
determined on affidavits in the present proceedings. The competent
adjudicating authority would be the appropriate forum for
consideration of the Petitioner‟s explanation and the material relied
upon by both sides.
30. At the same time, the Department cannot be permitted to keep
the matter pending indefinitely. Since the Respondent has itself stated
before this Court that it is ready and willing to afford the petitioner an
opportunity of personal hearing and to adjudicate the matter in a time-
bound manner, the said statement is required to be acted upon.
31. Accordingly, while this Court finds no ground to direct release
of the detained gold bars at this stage, it is considered appropriate to
direct that the Petitioner be afforded a reasonable opportunity of
personal hearing before the competent adjudicating authority. The
Petitioner shall be at liberty to place on record his explanation,
including his contentions regarding declaration of the goods, the
circumstances in which the statement dated 10.12.2024 was recorded,
and any other material which he seeks to rely upon in support of his
case.
32. The competent authority shall thereafter adjudicate the matter
expeditiously and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observations contained in the present judgment on the merits of the
allegations against the Petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 11 of 13
33. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
whether the Petitioner had declared the gold bars, whether the gold
bars were liable to confiscation, whether the Petitioner was eligible to
import the same, or whether the statement dated 10.12.2024 was
voluntarily made. All such questions are left open for consideration by
the competent authority in accordance with law.
CONCLUSION
34. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground to
exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for directing
release of the detained gold bars at this stage. The Writ Petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
35. However, the Respondent shall afford the Petitioner an
opportunity of personal hearing before the competent adjudicating
authority and shall thereafter adjudicate the matter in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of
four (04) weeks from the date on which the Petitioner appears before
the competent authority pursuant to notice issued by the Respondent.
36. The Petitioner shall appear before the competent authority on
such date as may be communicated to him by the Respondent and
shall be at liberty to produce all documents and material on which he
seeks to rely.
37. It is clarified that the dismissal of the present Petition shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
allegations against the Petitioner or on the question of confiscation,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 12 of 13
duty, fine or penalty. The competent authority shall take a decision
strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the material placed
before it.
38. The Petition 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
15:37:24
W.P.(C) 16945/2025 Page 13 of 13