Unconditional release was declined where an asserted oral show-cause notice required factual adjudication.

The Petitioner, an Indian citizen, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, on 27.02.2024 and was intercepted by Customs authorities after crossing the Green Channel.

Eight gold bars weighing approximately 290 grams were recovered and detained/seized under Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/27-02-2024/003893 on the ground of “Green Channel Violation”.

On the same date, the Petitioner’s statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The statement recorded that the gold belonged to him, that he had intentionally failed to declare it, and that he did not require a show cause notice or personal hearing.

The Department later asserted that an oral show cause notice had been issued on 27.02.2024 under the proviso to Section 124 of the Act. No written show cause notice or Order-in-Original had been issued, and the Petitioner had not appeared for appraisement.

The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court seeking release of the gold and waiver of detention or warehouse charges, contending that the statutory period under Section 110(2) had expired without issuance of a valid notice under Section 124(a).

The Department opposed the petition, relying on the alleged oral show cause notice, the Section 108 statement, and the Petitioner’s alleged failure to participate in the proceedings.

Whether the continued detention of the seized gold could be permitted when no written show cause notice had been issued within the period prescribed under Section 110(2), particularly where the Department alleged that an oral show cause notice had been issued under the proviso to Section 124.

Whether the High Court should direct unconditional release of the seized gold without permitting the Customs authorities to determine the validity of the alleged oral show cause notice, the voluntariness of the Section 108 statement, and the Petitioner’s liability to confiscation or penalty.

Whether the Petitioner’s allegations of coercion, non-declaration, and procedural irregularity could be adjudicated in writ proceedings before an Order-in-Original had been passed.

Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, requires return of seized goods where no notice under Section 124(a) is given within six months of seizure, subject to a permissible written extension of up to a further six months.

Section 124(a) ordinarily requires a written show cause notice setting out the grounds for proposed confiscation or penalty; however, its first proviso permits the notice and the corresponding representation to be oral at the request of the person concerned.

Relying on Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, the Court held that the period under Section 110(2) is mandatory and that failure to issue the requisite notice within the prescribed period ordinarily entails return of the seized goods; Sections 110 and 124 operate in distinct fields.

The Court distinguished Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs, where the Department had neither issued nor pleaded the existence of an oral show cause notice.

The evidentiary value and voluntariness of a Section 108 statement, and the questions of confiscation and penalty, are matters for statutory adjudication rather than premature determination in writ proceedings.

The Court held that the case could not be decided solely on the absence of a written notice because the Department specifically asserted that an oral show cause notice had been issued on the date of seizure under the first proviso to Section 124.

Whether the proceedings conducted on 27.02.2024 legally constituted an oral show cause notice, whether the Petitioner had requested such oral procedure, and whether his Section 108 statement was voluntary were disputed questions of fact requiring examination by the adjudicating authority.

The Court did not accept that a mere waiver recorded in a statement automatically dispensed with the statutory requirements; Section 124 permits an oral notice only in the circumstances specified in its proviso, and the mandatory principle in Jatin Ahuja remained applicable.

Nevertheless, because no Order-in-Original had yet been passed and the Department expressed readiness to complete adjudication, the Court considered it inappropriate to order unconditional release or conduct a fact-finding inquiry in writ jurisdiction.

The Petitioner was directed to appear before the adjudicating authority on 24.09.2026 at 2:30 p.m. for appraisement and completion of the proceedings.

The Department was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and to permit the Petitioner to raise all objections, including those concerning non-declaration, the circumstances surrounding the Section 108 statement, and the alleged oral show cause notice.

The adjudicating authority was directed to pass an Order-in-Original within six weeks of the Petitioner’s appearance, subject to his cooperation.

All merits—including the validity of the alleged oral notice, evidentiary value of the statement, confiscation, and penalty—were expressly left open.

Detention or warehouse charges were directed to abide by the adjudication outcome and applicable law.