Gold seizure petition dismissed as Show Cause Notice validly served via email under Section 110(2) Customs Act

Delhi HC dismissed petition seeking release of seized gold bars. Court held that Show Cause Notice (SCN) was validly served via email within mandatory six-month period under Section 110(2) of Customs Act. Gold was seized on 21.01.2023 and SCN served on 04.07.2023, meeting statutory timeline. Petitioner's claim of non-receipt of email was rejected as supporting mobile phone screenshot lacked proper certification under Section 65-B Evidence Act. Court found no merit in petition for premature release of gold bars.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeking release of gold bars seized by Customs Officers. Dispute over service of Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Customs Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a foreign national from Moscow, purchased gold bars in Russia and brought them to India for making jewelry. The Customs Officers seized the gold bars near the green channel without issuing an SCN. The petitioner later sent letters to the Commissioner of Customs requesting the return of her gold bars. The Revenue claimed to have issued an SCN on time, but the petitioner disputed receiving it.

The petitioner argued that the SCN was not served properly as per Section 153 of the Customs Act. The Revenue contended that the SCN was validly served via email. The court examined the legal framework under Sections 110(2), 124, and 153 of the Customs Act. The court noted that the SCN must be issued within six months of seizure, failing which the goods should be returned to the owner.

The court found that the initial attempts to serve the SCN were invalid, as the petitioner was a foreign national not residing in India. However, the SCN was later sent to the petitioner's correct email address. The court clarified that the e-mail Policy of the Government of India does not override statutory law, and using a non-government email service for sending the SCN does not invalidate the service.

The petitioner tried to prove non-receipt of the email, but the court rejected the evidence as unreliable. Since the SCN was served within six months of seizure, the court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to the release of the gold bars at that stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims.

---