Disputed compliance with Sections 124 and 110(2) must be determined by the adjudicating authority.

In W.P.(C) 2255/2026, Mohammad Sadiq, an Indian citizen, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport on 25.02.2022 from Saudi Arabia, where three yellow-metal bars weighing 253.2 grams were detained under a Detention Receipt.

The Customs Department relied on a purported statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, recording a Green Channel violation, non-declaration, and waiver of Show Cause Notice and personal hearing.

In W.P.(C) 666/2026, Ulugbek Zokirov, a Uzbek national, arrived at the airport on 24.02.2024 with assorted jewellery weighing approximately 230 grams.

The jewellery was detained for an alleged Green Channel violation, and the Department relied on a statement under Section 108 recording waiver of Show Cause Notice and personal hearing.

Both Petitioners disputed the voluntariness and circumstances of the statements. Zokirov alleged that he understood only Uzbek and had signed documents without a translator, while Sadiq alleged that pre-prepared documents had been placed before him for signature; both relied, inter alia, on CCTV footage.

No Order-in-Original had been passed and the goods remained with Customs.

The Petitioners sought release of the goods without detention or warehouse charges, contending that no notice under Section 124(a) had been issued within the period prescribed by Section 110(2).

Whether the goods were liable to be returned under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act because no notice under Section 124(a) was issued within the prescribed or validly extended period.

Whether the proceedings and statements relied upon by Customs constituted a valid oral Show Cause Notice under the first proviso to Section 124, or merely contained a recital waiving Show Cause Notice and personal hearing.

Whether the disputed questions concerning voluntariness, coercion, translation, execution of the statements, and the alleged Green Channel violation could be finally adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Petitioners were entitled to unconditional release of the goods and waiver of detention or warehouse charges at the writ stage.

Section 110(2) of the Customs Act mandates that seized goods be returned if no notice under Section 124(a) is given within six months of seizure, subject only to a properly recorded and communicated extension by the competent Customs authority for a further period not exceeding six months.

In Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024, decided on 11.09.2025, the Supreme Court held that the statutory period under Section 110(2) is mandatory and that failure to issue notice within the prescribed or validly extended period attracts return of the goods; Section 110(2) and Section 124 operate in distinct fields.

Section 124 requires notice of the grounds for proposed confiscation or penalty, an opportunity to make a representation, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing; under its first proviso, the notice and representation may be oral at the person’s request.

Relying on Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs, W.P.(C) 10772/2024, and Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:751-DB, the Court reaffirmed that a mere printed or recorded waiver of Show Cause Notice and personal hearing does not, by itself, constitute a valid oral Show Cause Notice under Section 124.

The Court accepted that Customs could not retain the goods indefinitely and that Section 110(2) imposed a mandatory statutory limitation.

However, it found that the present cases did not involve an admitted absence of notice: Customs specifically asserted that the proceedings conducted on the dates of interception amounted to oral Show Cause Notices, coupled with the Petitioners’ waiver of written notice and personal hearing.

Determining whether the documents represented genuine oral notices or merely standard waiver recitals required examination of the original records, the circumstances of execution, the manner in which the contents were explained, the alleged translator’s absence, CCTV footage, and other contemporaneous material.

Since these were disputed factual and evidentiary questions and no adjudication had yet occurred, the Court declined to conduct a final evidentiary inquiry under Article 226.

It nevertheless clarified that the Petitioners’ delay, alleged waiver, or the dismissal of the writ petitions could not by themselves cure non-compliance with Sections 110(2) and 124.

The Petitioners, personally or through authorised representatives, were directed to appear before the competent adjudicating authority on 26.09.2026 at 2:30 p.m.; the authority was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and complete adjudication within six weeks of appearance.

The authority must independently examine the statements under Section 108, the alleged waiver, the circumstances of execution, the applicability and effect of Section 110(2), and the requirements of Section 124.

The Court expressly left open whether a valid oral Show Cause Notice had been issued and held that dismissal did not affirm Customs’ position that a mere waiver satisfied Sections 110(2) and 124.