2025 (2) TMI 911 - HC - Customs

Detained wrist watch ordered released after show cause notice violation despite petitioner's delayed document submission

Mohamed Shamiuddeen Versus Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.

Delhi HC allowed petition for unconditional release of detained wrist watch. Court held that despite petitioner's belated submission of documents in ... Seeking unconditional release of the wrist watch detained - non-issuance of a show cause notice and personal hearing to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Though the Petitioner ought to have disclosed the fact that he had submitted the documents in response to email dated 20th February, 2024, in a belated manner, however, the fact that show cause notice was not issued in this case cannot be ignored by the Court. Following the decision in Amit Kumar [2025 (2) TMI 385 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the detention of the subject goods is itself liable to be set aside due to non-issuance of show cause notice, and the goods are accordingly directed to be released to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks. Conclusion - Detention is liable to be set aside due to non-issuance of show cause notice. Petition allowed. The petition in question was filed by Mohamed Shamiuddeen seeking the unconditional release of his Rolex wristwatch that was seized by the Customs Department upon his arrival in India from Hong Kong. The key issue revolved around the non-issuance of a show cause notice and personal hearing to the petitioner, as well as the validity of the standard form undertaking signed by the petitioner waiving these rights.The petitioner, an Indian passport holder and permanent resident of Hong Kong, arrived in India on 16th October, 2023, where his wristwatch was seized by the Customs Department. The petitioner claimed to have responded to an email requesting proof of Hong Kong residency on 2nd February, 2025, but the Department stated they did not receive any response to the email dated 20th February, 2024. The appraisement report valued the watch at 30,29,400/-, and the Department was in the process of passing a final order.The Court noted that the Department had the petitioner's contact details but failed to issue a proper show cause notice or grant a hearing after not receiving a response to the email. Citing the case of Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, the Court emphasized that a standard form waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing would not comply with the principles of natural justice. The Court highlighted the need for a conscious and informed waiver, as per Section 124 of the Act, which allows for supplementary notices and opportunities for representation and hearing.In light of the above, the Court held that the detention of the wristwatch was unlawful due to the non-issuance of a show cause notice, as established in the Amit Kumar case. Consequently, the Court directed the release of the goods to the petitioner within two weeks, with the petitioner responsible for any storage charges. The Court allowed the petition and disposed of all pending applications.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice principles in customs matters, emphasizing the need for proper issuance of show cause notices and opportunities for hearing before confiscation of goods. The decision reaffirmed the rights of individuals in such cases and set a precedent for future similar situations.