Absence of personal recovery does not warrant quashing Customs proceedings at the show-cause stage.

The petitioner, an AI SATS cabin-cleaning employee, was alleged to have retrieved two foreign-origin gold bars weighing 1,999 grams and valued at ₹1,92,50,370 from beneath Seat No. 39A of Saudi Airlines Flight No. SV-866, which had arrived from Jeddah.

The gold was allegedly concealed in a garbage bag and subsequently placed in the backpack of another staff member before the petitioner attempted to move it beyond the restricted airport area.

The gold was recovered from a vehicle after airport staff became suspicious and reported the petitioner’s conduct to their supervisors.

The petitioner was arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, and proceedings were initiated for offences under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act.

His statement was recorded under Section 108, and the Customs Department subsequently issued a show-cause notice under Section 124 proposing confiscation of the gold under Sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), 111(l) and 111(m), and imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) and/or 112(b).

The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the complaint and the entire proceedings, principally contending that no gold had been recovered from his person.

Whether the Customs proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed merely because the gold was not recovered from his person but from a vehicle at the airport?

Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to terminate proceedings at the stage of a show-cause notice, when the material disclosed an alleged coordinated smuggling operation requiring adjudication and further investigation?

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS concerning the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, while recognising that such jurisdiction should not ordinarily be exercised to stifle proceedings at their inception.

Under the Customs Act, Section 2(39) defines “smuggling” by reference to acts or omissions rendering goods liable to confiscation under Sections 111 or 113; Sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), 111(l) and 111(m) provide grounds for confiscation; Section 112 permits penalties against persons concerned in acts or omissions rendering goods liable to confiscation or knowingly dealing with such goods; and Section 124 authorises issuance of a show-cause notice before confiscation.

Section 123 places the burden of proving that seized gold is not smuggled on the relevant claimant in specified circumstances.

The Court also relied on Sheikh Mohd. Omer v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs and Union of India v. Raj Grow Impex LLP, which establish that “prohibition” under the Customs Act includes restrictions and that non-compliance with import conditions may render goods liable to confiscation.

A show-cause notice initiates adjudicatory proceedings and does not itself determine guilt or culpability.

The Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on the absence of recovery from his person was insufficient to justify quashing.

The allegations, including the petitioner’s alleged access to the aircraft, retrieval of the gold from the predetermined seat, concealment and attempted movement of the gold, together with his Section 108 statement and statements of other airport personnel, disclosed material requiring examination by the competent authority.

In an alleged organised smuggling arrangement, physical possession need not remain with every participant at every stage; a person may be liable as one link in the chain even if the contraband is recovered elsewhere.

The Court emphasised that it was not recording a finding of guilt, but only determining whether the proceedings disclosed sufficient allegations and material to continue.

Since the petitioner had not yet submitted his response to the show-cause notice, premature intervention would improperly terminate the statutory adjudicatory process before the Customs authority considered his defence.

It held that non-recovery of the gold from the petitioner’s person, by itself, did not warrant quashing where the material alleged his conscious participation in a coordinated smuggling operation.

The Court further held that interference at the stage of a show-cause notice was unwarranted.

The criminal petition was therefore rejected, while all contentions of the petitioner were left open for consideration before the competent authority and in other remedies available in law.

I.A. No. 1 of 2026 was disposed of consequentially, and the observations were declared not to prejudice the Customs adjudication.