Customs Confiscation Requires Consideration of the Noticee’s Reply and a Reasoned Adjudication.

The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice dated 23 October 2025 proposing confiscation under Sections 113(d), (e) and (h) of the Customs Act, 1962, of foreign currency valued at Rs.1,03,65,629, seized on 1 May 2025.

She asserted that she had brought the currency to India for a proposed family property transaction, which did not proceed, and was carrying it back when she voluntarily handed it over to airport security.

She had not replied to the show-cause notice but had applied for interim release of the currency.

The respondents submitted that the adjudicating authority had not yet considered her factual case or her contention that confiscation required a notification.

1. Whether the High Court should determine the petitioner’s challenge to the proposed confiscation before the petitioner responded to the show-cause notice and the adjudicating authority considered the relevant facts and law.

2. Whether the adjudicating authority must consider the petitioner’s contention that confiscation could not be sustained absent a notification under Section 11 of the Customs Act or under the Foreign Trade Policy.

The proposed confiscation was made under Sections 113(d), (e) and (h) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000.

The petitioner argued that confiscation required a notification under Section 11 of the Customs Act or under the Foreign Trade Policy.

The Court did not decide the substantive scope of these provisions or whether such a notification was required; it held that the adjudicating authority should consider the facts and the legal contention and reach a reasoned conclusion after giving the petitioner due opportunity.

The Court considered that the petitioner had not replied to the show-cause notice and that the second respondent, as adjudicating authority, had therefore not examined her factual explanation or her notification-based jurisdictional objection.

Because a complete adjudication required consideration of both fact and law, the Court left those matters for the authority to determine in the first instance, directing it to consider the petitioner’s response and supporting documents and issue a reasoned order.

The Court did not rule on the merits of the proposed confiscation or the request for interim release.

The petitioner was permitted to file a response, supporting documents and a certified copy of the order by 15 October 2026; the second respondent was directed, after giving her due opportunity, to decide the response by a reasoned order within six weeks thereafter.

No order directing release of the currency was made.