Waiver and full participation make absence of a formal show-cause notice insufficient for writ intervention.

The Petitioner imported Wi-Fi and related modules, which were assessed and cleared under Customs Tariff Heading 85176290.

Customs later alleged misclassification and wrongful availment of a concessional basic customs duty rate under Notification No. 57/2017-Customs.

The goods covered by the subject Courier Bill of Entry were detained and seized on 26 December 2025.

The Petitioner’s representative made submissions, furnished a catalogue, and its Director gave statements during the investigation; the judgment records that the Director expressly waived issuance of a show-cause notice (SCN).

The Commissioner thereafter passed an Order-in-Original and corrigendum on 31 July 2026.

The Petitioner challenged those orders by writ petition, despite acknowledging a statutory appeal to CESTAT.

A separate writ petition concerning continued detention of the goods was already pending.

1. Whether the absence of a formal written SCN, in the circumstances of this case, constituted a jurisdictional defect warranting the High Court’s intervention despite the available statutory appeal.

2. Whether the Court should separately direct provisional release of the goods when their continued detention was already in issue in another pending writ petition.

The Court considered Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, in relation to notice before a demand or proposed confiscation, and referred to the first proviso to Section 124 as permitting oral notice at the request of the person concerned.

It also referred to Section 128(1)(a) in discussing notice.

The judgment’s stated principle was that the relevant safeguard is a genuine and effective opportunity to know and answer the case, rather than the issuance of a document in a prescribed form; where that opportunity has substantially been afforded, absence of a separate formal SCN does not, without more, establish a jurisdictional defect.

A party that expressly waives the safeguard, participates without objection, and raises the objection only after an adverse order ordinarily cannot rely on it to bypass the statutory appellate remedy.

The Court did not decide the merits of the duty demand or classification dispute.

The Court noted that the Petitioner had made submissions, supplied the goods’ catalogue, and participated through statements by its Director, including an express waiver of an SCN.

It further observed that the Petitioner did not object before the Commissioner to continuation of the proceedings without a formal SCN.

In those circumstances, the alleged procedural omission did not disclose the kind of jurisdictional infirmity that justified bypassing the CESTAT appeal; the Petitioner’s objections remained open for consideration on appeal.

As to release of the goods, the Court declined to issue a separate direction because detention was already the subject of another pending writ petition and interim relief could also be sought before CESTAT.

It issued no separate direction for provisional release of the goods.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.