Absence of a written Section 124 notice does not automatically warrant release where oral proceedings and hearing remain available.

The petitioner, an Indian citizen, arrived at Terminal 3 of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Saudi Arabia on 10.12.2024. Customs authorities detained two gold bars weighing 166 grams, recording the reason as “Green Channel violation” in Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/10-12-2024/005561.

On the same day, the petitioner’s statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was recorded. The statement allegedly acknowledged non-declaration of the gold, liability to pay customs duty, fine and penalty, and stated that the petitioner did not require a show-cause notice or personal hearing.

No written show-cause notice under Section 124 was issued and no adjudication order was passed regarding the gold. The petitioner challenged the continued detention and sought release of the gold bars, while the Customs Department contended that the petitioner had waived the requirement of a written notice and personal hearing and offered to adjudicate the matter after granting him an opportunity of hearing.

Whether the continued detention of the two gold bars, in the absence of a written show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act and an adjudication order, warranted their release after expiry of the period contemplated under Section 110(2) of the Act?

Whether the petitioner’s statement under Section 108, including the recital that he did not require a show-cause notice or personal hearing, constituted sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 124, particularly where the Department asserted that oral proceedings had taken place?

Whether disputed questions concerning the voluntariness of the petitioner’s statement, declaration of the gold and alleged coercion could be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?

Section 110(2) of the Customs Act prescribes the statutory period within which notice must follow detention or seizure, and its consequences cannot be circumvented through an unauthorised procedure; this principle was recognised in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024.

Section 124 requires that, before confiscation of goods or imposition of penalty, the person concerned must receive notice of the grounds, an opportunity to make a representation, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing; its first proviso permits the notice and representation to be oral at the request of the person concerned.

Section 108 permits Customs authorities to record statements during investigation, though the voluntariness and evidentiary value of such statements may require factual adjudication.

The Court also considered Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs, W.P. (C) 10772/2024, where a mere waiver of notice was held insufficient because the Revenue had not shown that an oral show-cause notice had actually been issued.

Disputed questions of fact ordinarily cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction and should be examined by the competent adjudicating authority.

The Court distinguished the present case from one in which Customs had neither issued notice nor undertaken any proceedings with the passenger. Although no separate written show-cause notice had been issued, the Department asserted that oral proceedings had taken place at the time of interception, and the petitioner’s Section 108 statement recorded his admission regarding non-declaration and his stated waiver of notice and personal hearing.

The Detention Receipt also informed him that the goods had to be cleared within two months, failing which action under the Customs Act would follow.

The Court held that the effect of this material, the alleged oral proceedings, and the petitioner’s waiver could not be conclusively determined without examining disputed facts, including whether the statement was voluntary, whether the gold had been declared, and the circumstances of its recovery.

Since the Department was willing to provide a personal hearing and complete adjudication, the Court considered it inappropriate to order release solely because a written notice was not on record, while emphasising that the Department could not keep the matter pending indefinitely.

The Customs Department was directed to issue notice to the petitioner, afford him a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and permit him to produce all supporting documents and material.

The competent authority was directed to adjudicate the matter expeditiously and, in any event, within four weeks from the date on which the petitioner appeared pursuant to the Department’s notice.

The Court expressly left open all questions concerning declaration, confiscation, eligibility to import the gold, voluntariness of the Section 108 statement, duty, fine and penalty.