TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1.1 Whether continued detention of the seized gold bar is lawful in the absence of issuance of a show cause notice within the statutory period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
1.2 Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, including the purported waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing, could by itself justify confiscation or non-release of the seized gold bar in writ jurisdiction.
1.3 Whether the writ petition seeking direct release of the gold bar could be allowed without a factual inquiry by the Customs Department regarding ownership and foreign origin markings, and what directions were required to ensure due process.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Legality of continued detention of the seized gold bar without issuance of show cause notice under Section 110(2)
Interpretation and reasoning
2.1 The Court noted that the petitioner's gold bar was seized on 5 January 2023 and that no show cause notice had been issued nor any personal hearing granted thereafter.
2.2 The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, which held that: (i) the only power to extend the six-month period prescribed in Section 110(2) lies in the first proviso to Section 110(2); (ii) release under Section 110A is merely interim and does not affect the mandatory consequence in Section 110(2); and (iii) where no notice under Section 124(a) is given within six months of seizure, and no valid extension under the first proviso is made, the seized goods must be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized.
2.3 The Court further noted the Supreme Court's clarification that the time period to issue notice under Section 124(a) is laid down only in Section 110(2), that the provisions are distinct, and that the consequence of non-compliance with Section 110(2) is return of the seized goods.
Conclusions
2.4 The Court held that, while deciding the petitioner's case, the Customs Department must bear in mind that, under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the law declared in Jatin Ahuja, if no show cause notice has been issued within the statutory period (and validly extended period, if any), the seized goods are liable to be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized.
Issue 2 - Effect of statement under Section 108 and purported waiver of show cause notice and hearing
Legal framework (as discussed)
2.5 The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he stated that the gold bar did not belong to him, admitted his omission and commission, expressed willingness to pay duty, fine and penalty, and stated that he did not need any show cause notice or personal hearing.
Interpretation and reasoning
2.6 The Court observed that statements under Section 108 would not be admissible in evidence but that such a statement at least reveals the need for a factual inquiry regarding (i) the correctness of the contents of the statement, and (ii) whether the gold bar bears foreign origin markings.
2.7 The Court noted that a pre-printed waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing had been relied upon by the Customs Department in this case.
2.8 The Court directed that, while passing the final order, the Customs Department shall also consider the legal position laid down in Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs, where no show cause notice was issued and no personal hearing was granted, and a pre-printed waiver of show cause notice and hearing was relied upon.
Conclusions
2.9 The Court held that the Section 108 statement and purported waiver cannot, by themselves and without factual inquiry and due process, justify confiscation or continued non-release in the present writ proceedings, and that the competent authority must examine these aspects in light of the binding legal position, including Amit Kumar.
Issue 3 - Necessity of factual inquiry by Customs and appropriateness of relief in writ jurisdiction
Interpretation and reasoning
2.10 The Court recorded the respondent's contention that the petitioner himself stated that the gold bar did not belong to him, that he had not purchased it, and that the gold bar carried foreign markings, and therefore, in the absence of evidence of ownership, it was liable to confiscation.
2.11 The Court held that the petitioner's Section 108 statement, the question of ownership, and the issue whether the gold bar bears foreign origin markings involve factual determinations which cannot be undertaken in a writ petition.
2.12 Considering these aspects, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Customs Department on a specified date, either physically or through an authorised representative, and, if not physically present, to join virtually. The Court further directed that, after verifying the petitioner's credentials and affording him a hearing, the Customs Department shall pass an order in accordance with law.
2.13 The Court also directed that the competent authority shall keep in mind the legal position under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, as interpreted in Jatin Ahuja, and the decision in Amit Kumar, while deciding the matter.
Conclusions
2.14 The Court declined to order direct release of the gold bar in the writ petition and instead directed a time-bound appearance and adjudication before the Customs Department, with an obligation on the authority to afford hearing, verify credentials, conduct the necessary factual inquiry, and decide the issue of release or confiscation strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme and binding precedents.
TaxTMI 
