TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Act, 1962 [the 'Act']. 2. Through the present petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the Order-in-Appeal dated 21.01.2026 and consequential restoration of the Order-in-Original dated 28.05.2025. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that the gold bar seized from him was confiscated without issuance of a valid show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act and, consequently, the proceedings culminating in the Order-in-Original as well as the subsequent Order-in-Appeal are vitiated for violation of the statutory requirement and principles of natural justice. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. 4. The Petitioner, an Indian national, arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Doha, Qatar on 01.07.2024 by Flight No. AI-972. Upon his arrival, he crossed the Green Channel and was thereafter intercepted by the Customs authorities and a gold bar weighing 117 grams was recovered from his possession. 5. A Detention Receipt bearing No. 4745 dated 01.07.2024 was issued in respect of the said article. The article was described there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). On 25.09.2025, this Court disposed of the said writ petition and directed the departmental appellate proceedings to be decided within the stipulated period. The existence of the said proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) is also reflected in the record of this Court. 11. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) passed the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21.01.2026. By the said order, the appeal preferred by the Department was allowed and the gold bar weighing 117 grams was ordered to be absolutely confiscated. 12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order-in-Appeal, the Petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition on 27.04.2026. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 13. Contentions of the Petitioner 13.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned Order-in-Appeal is liable to be set aside as the mandatory requirement of Section 124 of the Act was not complied with before confiscation of the gold bar. It was contended that no written show cause notice was ever served upon the Petitioner. It was submitted that the document dated 01.07.2024, described by the Respondent as a voluntary statement under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, decided on 11.09.2025, to contend that the statutory scheme relating to seizure and issuance of notice under Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Act has to be strictly complied with. 14. Contentions of the Respondent 14.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent opposed the present Petition primarily on the ground of maintainability. It was submitted that the impugned order is an order passed in appeal under the Act and the Petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of filing a revision application before the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Act. 14.2. It was submitted that the Petitioner cannot bypass the statutory remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, particularly when the impugned Order-in-Appeal is a reasoned and speaking order passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 14.3. On merits, it was submitted that the Petitioner, in his voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act on 01.07.2024, admitted that he had crossed the Green Channel, that the gold belonged to him, that he was aware of the customs duty leviable on impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nated in an Order-in-Original dated 28.05.2025, whereby the gold bar was ordered to be dealt with in terms of the provisions of the Act, with an option of re-export upon payment of the applicable customs duty, redemption fine and penalty. The said order was thereafter subjected to appellate proceedings and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), by the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21.01.2026, allowed the Department's appeal and ordered absolute confiscation of the gold bar. 17. The impugned order is, therefore, an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in relation to goods imported as baggage. The Customs Act, 1962 provides a specific statutory remedy against such an order by way of revision before the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Act. 18. The principal question which consequently arises is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court ought to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution notwithstanding the availability of the aforesaid statutory remedy. 19. The law governing exercise of writ jurisdiction in the presence of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is well settle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent has further relied upon the participation of the Petitioner's authorised representative in the adjudication proceedings. 23. The Petitioner disputes the aforesaid assertion and contends that no oral show cause notice, in the manner contemplated by the first proviso to Section 124 of the Act, was ever given. The Petitioner also disputes the circumstances in which the statement dated 01.07.2024 came to be recorded and alleges that the document was prepared in advance and was made to be signed by him without its contents being properly explained to him. 24. The Respondent, on the other hand, relies upon the statement dated 01.07.2024 as a voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act and points out that the statement records that its contents were read over and explained to the Petitioner in the vernacular and that it was tendered without duress, pressure or threat. 25. These rival assertions are accompanied by corresponding rival submissions concerning the effect of the statement dated 01.07.2024, the alleged waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing, the alleged request for an oral show cause notice and the subsequent proceedings stated to have taken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. The aforesaid decision, therefore, does not warrant this Court determining, in the present writ proceedings, the disputed question as to whether the requirements of Sections 110(2) and 124 were duly complied with in the facts of the present case. Those questions remain open. 31. This Court is also conscious of the Petitioner's submission that a subsequent personal hearing cannot cure the alleged failure to issue a valid show cause notice. That proposition, in the abstract, is not being rejected. However, the present case is not one where the Respondent admits that no notice was given. The Respondent specifically asserts that an oral show cause notice was given on 01.07.2024 and that the Petitioner was subsequently granted a personal hearing on 21.05.2025. The legal sufficiency of the alleged oral show cause notice, as well as the significance of the subsequent personal hearing, are matters which the Petitioner can agitate before the Revisional Authority. 32. There is an additional circumstance which weighs with us. The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) 14957/2025 in relation to the proceedings arising from the Order-in-Original dated 28.05.2025. By or....