[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Mohammad Khadim Khan vs The Commissioner Of Custom & Ors on 18 December, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 18thDecember, 2025
Uploaded on: 20th December, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 16673/2025
MOHAMMAD KHADIM KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mohd. Ather Ansari, Md. Mobin
Akhtar, Md. Salman, Advs.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vishal Chadha Senior Standing
Counsel along with Mr. Chandan
Kumar Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of the
gold kada weighing 116 grams (hereinafter. 'gold item'), which was
detained by the Customs Department vide detention receipt bearing no.
DR/lNDEL4/16-01-2024/003547 dated 16th January, 2024.
3. A brief background of the Petitioner's case is that he is an Indian
passport holder who has been residing in Saudi Arabia for the past 10 years.
The Petitioner has purchased the gold item from Saudi Arabia. The
Petitioner had travelled back to India on 16th January, 2024. Upon his
arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, he was
intercepted by the concerned officials of the Customs Department and the
gold item was seized.
4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no Show Cause Notice has
been issued to the Petitioner till date. Further, the submission of ld. Counsel
for the Petitioner is that he is willing to pay the Customs duty.
5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 3rd November, 2025, the Court
directed the Customs Department to produce the gold items before the
Court. The same have been produced today in a sealed box.
6. The Court has perused the seized gold items which have been
produced today and the same do not appear to be personal jewellery of the
Petitioner.
7. Mr. Chadha, ld. SSC submits that the Petitioner has not approached
the Customs Department for appraisement of the gold items.
8. However, since there is no Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, 'SCN')
issued to the Petitioner in this matter, in terms of Union of India & Anr. v.
Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024the detention would no longer be
tenable.
9. It is the settled position in law, after Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin
Ahuja (Supra) that without a SCN under Section 110 of the Customs Act,
1962, the goods of the Petitioner would be liable to be released. The relevant
observation in Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja (Supra) stated as under:
"17. It is difficult for us also to subscribe to the views
expressed by the Bombay High Court in Jayant
Hansraj Shah's case (supra). We are of the view that
the only power that has been conferred upon the
Revenue to extend the time period is in accordance
with the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 110
of the Act, 1962. The Delhi High Court is right in
saying that any effort to say that the release under
Section 110A of the Act, 1962 would extinguish the
operation of the consequence of not issuing show-
cause notice within the statutory period spelt out in
Section 110(2) would be contrary to the plain
meaning and intendment of the statute.
18. The Delhi High Court has done well to explain that
this is so because Section 110A, is by way of an interim
order, enabling release of goods like fast moving or
perishable etc. The existence of such power does not, in
any way, impede or limit the operation of the
mandatory provision of Section 110(2).
19. In the case in hand, indisputably the car was
seized under sub-section (1) and furthermore no
notice in respect of the goods seized was given under
clause (a) of section 124 of the said Act within six
months of the seizure. The consequence, therefore, in
such a case is that the goods shall be returned to the
person from whose possession they were seized. The
first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 110 of the
said Act, however, provides that the Principal
Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of
Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
extend the six months' period by a period not
exceeding six months and inform the person from
whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the
period so specified. The proviso therefore
contemplates that the period of six months mentioned
in sub-section (2) of section 110 of the said Act can be
extended by the higher authority for a further period
not exceeding six months, for reasons to be recorded
in writing. The proviso also requires the higher
authority to inform this to the person from whom
such goods were seized before the expiry of the period
of six months mentioned in sub-section (2) of section
110. We find that in respect of the seized car, there is
neither any notice under clause (a) of section 124
issued to the respondent within six months of the
seizure nor the period of six months ever came to be
extended for a further period of six months. In the
absence of there being any notice as required by the
first proviso even within the extended period upto one
year, the consequence that ought to follow is release
of the seized car.
[...]
24. The appeals before us are all anterior in time to the
coming into force of the second proviso to Section
110(2) of the Act, 1962. Although, it is not necessary
for us to say anything further, yet we may clarify that
the time period to issue notice under Clause (a) of
Section 124 is prescribed only in sub-section (2) of
Section 110 of the Act, 1962. This time period has
nothing to do ultimately with the issuance of show-
cause notice under Section 124 of the Act, 1962. The
two provisions are distinct and they operate in a
different field."
10. In view thereof, in terms of the judgment in Jatin Ahuja (Supra), it is
a settled position of law that once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to
issue a SCN and afford a hearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed
under Section 110 of The Customs Act, 1962, is a period of six months and
subject to complying with the formalities, a further extension for a period of
six months can be taken by the Customs Department for issuing the SCN. In
this case, the one year period itself has elapsed, thus no SCN can be issued.
The detention is therefore impermissible and the detained articles of the
Petitioner are directed to be released to the Petitioner.
11. The Petitioner shall appear before the Customs Department on
8thJanuary, 2026in person or through an Authorised Representative, in
which case, a proper email from the Petitioner or some form of
communication to be sent to the Customs Department that the Petitioner has
authorised the concerned Authorised Representative to appear on behalf of
the Petitioner. The Petitioner shall join virtually for verification of identity.
12. The gold items of the Petitioner shall be released by the Customs
Department subject to payment of applicable Customs Duty and
warehousing charges as applicable on the date of detention.
13. The Nodal Officer mentioned below shall facilitate the Petitioner's
appearance before the competent authority for compliance with the present
order:
Mr. Mukesh Gulia, Superintendent, Legal
Office of Commissioner, Customs
IGI Airports, T-3, New Delhi
Email id: [email protected]
14. In addition, if the Customs Department wishes to initiate any action
under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is free to do so in accordance
with law, if permissible.
15. The gold items produced today have been returned to the concerned
official from the Customs Department who is present in Court today.
16. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any,
are disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
DECEMBER 18, 2025/pt/ck
