Writ jurisdiction declined against customs adjudication where statutory appeal exists and challenge suffers delay and laches.

The Petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport from Riyadh on 6 December 2020 and was intercepted after crossing the Green Channel. A 116-gram Suisse-brand gold bar was recovered from him and detained/seized under Detention Receipt No. 16583.

On the same day, his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was recorded. The statement purportedly acknowledged the Green Channel violation and recorded that he did not require a show cause notice and that the matter could be decided on merits.

Customs authorities subsequently issued communications and a public notice concerning detained/seized valuable goods, but the Petitioner did not approach the Department.

By Order-in-Original dated 7 June 2023, the gold was absolutely confiscated under Section 111 of the Act and penalties were imposed under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA.

The Petitioner claimed that he had not been served with a show cause notice or hearing notice and became aware of the Order-in-Original only on 26 September 2025.

He then filed the present writ petition seeking release of the gold, challenging the adjudication proceedings, and contending that the detention had become unlawful under Section 110(2) in the absence of a notice under Section 124.

He had not challenged the Order-in-Original before the statutory appellate authority under Section 128.

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to examine the validity of the Order-in-Original dated 7 June 2023 when an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act was available.

Whether the Petitioner’s challenge based on alleged non-service of a show cause notice and denial of hearing, including the validity and legal effect of the purported waiver recorded in his Section 108 statement, ought to be examined in writ jurisdiction.

Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on account of unexplained delay and laches, the seizure having occurred in 2020 and the Order-in-Original having been passed in 2023.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which the existence of an alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but exhaustion of an efficacious alternative remedy is a well-recognised principle governing its discretionary exercise.

Section 128 of the Customs Act provides an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against a decision or order passed by an officer of Customs lower in rank than a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.

Sections 110(2) and 124 govern the statutory period for issuing a show cause notice and the requirement of notice before confiscation or penalty, while Sections 111, 112 and 114AA provide for confiscation and penalties in the circumstances specified by the Act.

The Court also applied the doctrine of delay and laches, under which unexplained and prolonged inaction may justify refusal of discretionary relief under Article 226.

The judgments in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja and Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs were considered but held not to require examination of the concluded adjudication proceedings in the present writ petition, particularly when a statutory appeal was available.

The Court held that the Petitioner’s grievance was not merely about continued detention of the gold; it involved a substantive challenge to the Order-in-Original, including alleged non-service of notice, denial of hearing, the circumstances and effect of the Section 108 statement, and the findings regarding the Green Channel violation and entitlement to import the gold.

Determination of these questions would require examination of the adjudication record, the statement, departmental communications, the public notice, and the factual circumstances surrounding the proceedings—matters more appropriately considered by the statutory appellate authority.

Although Article 226 jurisdiction remained available, the Court found no justification for bypassing the remedy under Section 128.

The Petitioner had known of the seizure since 6 December 2020, failed to respond to the departmental notice, did not challenge the Order-in-Original after its issuance on 7 June 2023, and approached the Court only in 2025 without a satisfactory explanation.

These circumstances independently attracted the doctrine of delay and laches and weighed against discretionary writ relief.

The Court expressly left open all questions on merits, including the applicability of Sections 110(2) and 124, the alleged waiver of show cause notice or personal hearing, the validity of the Section 108 statement, the Green Channel violation, and the confiscation and penalties.

The petition and all pending applications were accordingly disposed of.