Writ release of detained goods is unavailable where statutory compliance turns on disputed facts.

The Petitioner, an Indian citizen, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport from Medina on 10 April 2023, carrying two gold bars weighing 233 grams and having 995 purity.

The gold was detained under Detention Receipt No. 001633, which recorded that the goods had been detained at the Petitioner’s request and sealed in his presence and over his signature.

On the same day, the Petitioner’s statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was recorded. It stated that he had crossed the Green Channel without declaring the gold, acknowledged that Customs duty was payable, agreed to the Department’s assessment, and expressed willingness to pay duty, fine and penalty.

The statement also recorded that he did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing.

On 8 May 2023, the Petitioner submitted a written request for release, admitting that he had opted for the Green Channel without declaring dutiable goods, expressing regret, and stating: “An oral SCN has been received” and that he did not want a written Show Cause Notice or personal hearing.

No written Show Cause Notice was issued.

The Petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking unconditional release of the gold bars and waiver of detention or warehousing charges, contending that Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Act had not been complied with.

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to release of the detained gold bars on the ground that the mandatory requirements of Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 had not been complied with, particularly in the absence of a written Show Cause Notice.

Whether the Petitioner’s statement under Section 108 of the Act and his subsequent written acknowledgement that an oral Show Cause Notice had been received constituted sufficient material to defeat his claim for mandatory release in writ jurisdiction.

Whether the disputed assertions that the gold had been declared at the Red Channel, that the documents were obtained by coercion, and that the departmental records were fabricated could be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, holding, consistently with Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024, decided on 11 September 2025, that the period prescribed for issuing the notice contemplated by Section 124(a) is mandatory and that failure to issue such notice within the prescribed period attracts the statutory consequence under Section 110(2); however, the time-limit under Section 110(2) and the substantive safeguards under Section 124 operate in distinct fields.

Section 124 requires notice of the grounds on which confiscation or penalty is proposed, an opportunity to make a representation, and an opportunity of hearing, subject to its first proviso permitting the notice and representation to be oral at the person’s request.

Relying on Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. and Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs, the Court recognised that a mere pre-printed waiver of Show Cause Notice or personal hearing cannot, by itself, establish compliance with Section 124; nevertheless, the Court held that the present case had to be assessed on its particular contemporaneous record and could not be decided solely on the basis of the Petitioner’s later disputed assertions.

The Court further applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unsuitable for determination of disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence.

The Court accepted that Sections 110(2) and 124 impose mandatory statutory safeguards and that a mechanical or pre-printed waiver cannot ordinarily substitute compliance with Section 124.

However, it found that the Petitioner had not established an undisputed case of total statutory non-compliance.

His Section 108 statement recorded that he had crossed the Green Channel without declaring the gold and did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing.

More significantly, his subsequent written request dated 8 May 2023 independently admitted non-declaration, expressed regret, waived a written notice and personal hearing, and expressly stated that an oral Show Cause Notice had been received.

The Petitioner’s later claim that he had declared the gold at the Red Channel and had been compelled to sign false or pre-written documents materially conflicted with these records and was unsupported by any contemporaneous retraction.

Determining whether the documents were coerced or fabricated, whether the gold had been declared, and whether the alleged CCTV footage supported the Petitioner would require evidentiary appreciation, which the Court declined to undertake in writ proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court held that the Petitioner could not obtain a mandamus for release merely by relying on his subsequent and disputed version of events.

The Court clarified that its decision did not approve the mechanical use of pre-printed waivers, nor did it determine the Petitioner’s ultimate liability to confiscation or penalty or whether the gold was liable to confiscation.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the Petitioner pursuing remedies available before the competent Customs authority or any other appropriate forum in accordance with law.