2025 (11) TMI 1464

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hain'), which was detained by the Customs Department vide detention receipt dated 16th April, 2025. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that she is an Indian passport holder, residing in Dubai, holding a residence certificate of Dubai. The Petitioner had travelled from Dubai to India on 16th April, 2025, and upon her arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, she was intercepted by the concerned officials of the Customs Department and her gold chain, which is stated to be a personal effect item, was detained. 4. Mr. Shubham Tyagi, ld. Counsel for the Respondent, has taken instructions in this matter and submits that no Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to the Petitioner pursuant to the detention of her gold chain. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... portion of the judgment in Amit Kumar (supra) is as under: "16. A perusal of Section 124 of the Act along with the alleged waiver which is relied upon would show that the oral SCN cannot be deemed to have been served in this manner as is being alleged by the Department. If an oral SCN waiver has to be agreed to by the person concerned, the same ought to be in the form of a proper declaration, consciously signed by the person concerned. Even then, an opportunity of hearing ought to be afforded, inasmuch as, the person concerned cannot be condemned unheard in these matters. Printed waivers of this nature would fundamentally violate rights of persons who are affected. Natural justice is not merely lip-service. It has to be given effe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Supreme Court are set out below: "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 wel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 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) o....