Writ court declines unconditional release of detained customs goods amid delay, suppression, and disputed factual issues.

The Petitioner arrived at Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from the UAE on 28.06.2023. After crossing the Green Channel, Customs authorities intercepted her and recovered one yellow-metal chain appearing to be gold, weighing 58 grams.

The article was detained under Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/28-06-2023/002115 for “Green Channel Violation”; its value was recorded as “to be appraised”.

On the same date, the Petitioner made a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, acknowledging that the article belonged to her, that she knew Customs duty was payable, and that she had intentionally not declared it. She agreed to assessment and expressed willingness to pay applicable duty, fine and penalty, while stating that she did not require a show-cause notice or personal hearing.

The Petitioner subsequently approached the High Court on 21.01.2026, approximately 938 days after the detention, seeking quashing of the detention and unconditional return of the chain on the ground that no notice under Section 124 had been issued within the period contemplated by Section 110(2) of the Act. She also sought waiver of warehouse and handling charges.

The Customs Department opposed the Petition on grounds of suppression of the Section 108 statement, delay and laches, and the existence of disputed factual questions concerning the character, composition, value and legal status of the chain.

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to an unconditional writ directing return of the detained chain on the assertion that no notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act was issued within the period contemplated under Section 110(2).

Whether the High Court could conclusively determine that the chain was bona fide used personal jewellery or a personal effect, despite the Customs Department’s contrary case and the unresolved questions concerning its composition, purity, value and eligibility under the baggage regime.

Whether the Petition was liable to be rejected on account of delay, laches and non-disclosure of the material Section 108 statement.

Whether warehouse and handling charges could be waived in the writ proceedings.

The Court applied Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, recognising that statutory safeguards concerning notice and continued detention must be complied with and that the legal consequences of non-compliance are governed by the statutory scheme.

It considered the evidentiary and procedural significance of the Petitioner’s statement under Section 108, including her admissions regarding non-declaration and her stated waiver of a show-cause notice and personal hearing.

The Court applied the principle that jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable, requiring prompt approach and full disclosure of material facts.

It further held that disputed questions of fact are not ordinarily conclusively adjudicated in writ jurisdiction where the statutory authority is competent to determine them.

The Court considered Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024, decided on 11.09.2025, on the consequences of non-compliance with Section 110(2), but held that the precedent must be applied in its complete factual and statutory context.

It also considered Saba Simran v. Union of India on personal jewellery and personal effects, while holding that such classification depends on the facts of each case.

Article 300A of the Constitution was held not to justify bypassing the statutory process in the absence of an undisputed factual foundation.

The Court held that the Petitioner’s claim could not be examined solely on the basis of the narrative in the writ petition because the contemporaneous Section 108 statement, which contained material admissions and an alleged waiver of notice and hearing, had not been disclosed.

The unexplained delay of approximately 938 days, unsupported by any representation, acknowledgment or other contemporaneous material showing continuous pursuit of the matter, also weighed against exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction.

Although the Court accepted that compliance with Sections 110(2) and 124 was legally significant, it declined to grant unconditional release without examining the complete procedural record and the legal effect of the Petitioner’s statement.

Further, whether the chain was genuinely old and used personal jewellery, its composition and value, and the applicability of the baggage provisions involved disputed factual matters requiring determination by the competent Customs authority rather than conclusively by the High Court under Article 226.

The claim for waiver of warehouse and handling charges was similarly left to the adjudicating authority.

The parties were left to the statutory process, and the competent Customs authority was directed to complete the appraisement and any further proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date on which the Petitioner, through her authorised representative or otherwise in accordance with law, cooperates and makes herself available.

The Petitioner was directed to furnish documents or information lawfully required by the authority.

The Court left open the issue of warehouse and handling charges and expressly clarified that it had expressed no opinion on confiscation, duty, fine, penalty or the ultimate merits of the matter.