Release under Section 110(2) is unavailable when a show-cause notice issues within the validly extended period.

The Petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Jeddah on 26.02.2025 and was intercepted after opting for the Green Channel. Customs authorities recovered nine gold bars and one gold chain weighing approximately 172 grams, which were detained under Detention Receipt No. 36069 dated 26.02.2025.

The Respondent relied on a statement allegedly recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, in which the Petitioner purportedly waived a Show Cause Notice and personal hearing.

Before expiry of the initial six-month period, the competent authority extended the period for issuance of notice by a further six months on 20.08.2025 under the proviso to Section 110(2).

The goods were appraised on 23.02.2026 at a net weight of 170.6 grams, purity of 995, and assessable value of ₹14,04,200.

A Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(j), 111(l), 111(m) and 111(o), and penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA, was issued on 23.02.2026, before expiry of the extended period on 25.02.2026.

The Petitioner had instituted the writ petition on 01.12.2025, principally seeking release of the goods on the ground that the initial statutory period had expired and that the extension was invalid.

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to release of the detained goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act on the ground that a Show Cause Notice had not been issued within the original six-month period.

Whether the Show Cause Notice issued on 23.02.2026 was within the validly extended period under the proviso to Section 110(2), and whether the Court was required to adjudicate the Petitioner’s objections to the extension at the writ stage.

Whether the alleged waiver of the Show Cause Notice and personal hearing, and the disputed circumstances surrounding the Petitioner’s Section 108 statement, required examination for deciding the claim for release.

Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires issuance of a notice under Section 124(a) within six months of seizure, failing which the goods must be returned; its proviso permits the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs, for reasons recorded in writing and after informing the person concerned before expiry of the prescribed period, to extend the period by a further period not exceeding six months.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024, decided on 11.09.2025, was relied upon for the principle that the statutory consequence under Section 110(2) follows where notice is not issued within the initial or validly extended period, while Section 110(2) and the substantive requirements of Section 124 operate in distinct fields.

The Court also considered Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs, W.P.(C) 10772/2024, decided on 04.11.2024, which held that the Customs Act contains no provision permitting waiver of the written notice contemplated by Section 124 where no notice has been issued.

The Court held that the decisive fact was that the competent authority had extended the statutory period on 20.08.2025 and the Show Cause Notice was issued on 23.02.2026, before the extended period expired on 25.02.2026.

Since the writ petition was itself filed on 01.12.2025, the extended period was still operative when the Court’s jurisdiction was invoked, and no right to release had accrued merely on expiry of the original six-month period.

The Court declined to adjudicate at the writ stage the Petitioner’s disputed objections concerning the sufficiency of the reasons for extension, alleged non-communication of the extension, or absence of application of mind, particularly because the notice had been issued within the period claimed by Customs to be legally available.

The Court further found it unnecessary to decide whether the alleged waiver of notice or personal hearing was valid, or whether the Section 108 statement was voluntary, because a written Show Cause Notice had in fact been issued within the extended period.

Those objections were left open for consideration in the adjudicatory proceedings.

The Petition seeking release of the gold was dismissed.

The Petitioner was granted liberty to raise all permissible objections—including those concerning the legality of the detention or seizure, the Show Cause Notice, the extension, and the evidentiary value of the Section 108 statement—in the proceedings before the competent adjudicating authority, which was directed to decide them independently and in accordance with law.