Absence of a written show-cause notice alone does not warrant unconditional release where oral compliance under Section 124 is disputed.

The Petitioner returned to India from Abu Dhabi on 20 January 2024 and was intercepted at Indira Gandhi International Airport after crossing the Green Channel.

Three gold bars, collectively weighing 93 grams, were recovered from his possession and detained/seized under Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/20-01-2024/003576 for “Green Channel violation”.

On the same day, his statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, in which he allegedly admitted concealment and intentional non-declaration of the gold and stated that he did not require a show-cause notice or personal hearing.

No separate written show-cause notice under Section 124 was issued.

The Respondent relied on a proceedings chart recording 20 January 2024 as the date of an oral show-cause notice.

The Petitioner challenged the continued detention, contending that the statutory period under Section 110(2) had expired without a valid show-cause notice and that the Section 108 statement was coerced and procedurally invalid.

The Respondent disputed these allegations and asserted that the Petitioner had waived notice and hearing and had failed to appear for appraisement.

Whether the absence of a separate written show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, within the period prescribed by Section 110(2), required unconditional release of the seized gold bars.

Whether the proceedings allegedly undertaken on 20 January 2024, including the asserted oral show-cause notice and the Petitioner’s Section 108 statement, constituted sufficient compliance with Section 124.

Whether the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, could determine the disputed questions concerning the voluntariness and evidentiary value of the Petitioner’s statement and the alleged coercion.

The Court applied Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, under which seized goods must be returned if a show-cause notice is not issued within the prescribed period, subject to the statutory extension; the Court recognised that this requirement cannot be defeated through an unauthorised procedure.

Section 124 requires notice of the grounds on which confiscation or penalty is proposed and an opportunity to make a representation and be heard, but its first proviso permits the notice and representation to be oral at the request of the person concerned.

The Court considered Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024, decided on 11 September 2025, as authority for the consequences of non-compliance with Section 110(2), but held that its application depended on whether Section 124 had in fact been complied with.

Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs, W.P.(C.) 10772/2024, was distinguished because, unlike that case, the Respondent here specifically asserted that an oral show-cause notice had been issued.

The Court also applied the principle that disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence are ordinarily unsuitable for determination in writ proceedings.

The Court held that the controversy could not be resolved solely by noting that no written notice had been issued.

Section 124 permits an oral notice at the person’s request, and the Respondent’s proceedings chart expressly recorded 20 January 2024 as the date of an oral show-cause notice.

However, the recital in the Section 108 statement that the Petitioner did not require notice or a personal hearing was not, by itself, conclusive proof that Section 124 had been satisfied; the authority had to determine whether the grounds for proposed confiscation or penalty were communicated and whether a meaningful opportunity was afforded.

The Petitioner’s allegations that the statement was pre-typed, obtained under coercion, or signed on blank papers raised disputed factual matters requiring examination of the contemporaneous record and CCTV footage, which the High Court declined to undertake under Articles 226 and 227.

Since the Respondent undertook to conduct adjudication and provide a hearing, the Court considered it appropriate to leave the validity of the alleged oral notice and the statement to the competent adjudicating authority, while preventing indefinite continuation of the proceedings.

The writ petition was disposed of, with directions that the Petitioner be given notice to appear before the competent adjudicating authority, afforded a personal hearing, and permitted to produce all relevant material, including evidence concerning the circumstances in which his statement was recorded.

The competent authority was directed to adjudicate the matter strictly in accordance with law and, in any event, within four weeks from the date on which the Petitioner appeared pursuant to the Respondent’s notice.

The Court expressly left open the questions of compliance with Section 124, voluntariness of the statement, declaration or concealment of the gold, liability to confiscation, and imposition of duty, fine, or penalty.