TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... items, as also a direction that no detention or warehouse charges be recovered from him at the time of release of the said gold. 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. In W.P.(C) 2255/2026, the Petitioner is an Indian citizen. He arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 25.02.2022 by Flight No. XY-329 from Saudi Arabia. Three yellow-metal bars, collectively weighing 253.2 grams, were found in his possession. A Detention Receipt bearing No. 51478 dated 25.02.2022 was issued in respect thereof. A subsequent Detention Receipt bearing No. 40698 also refers to the aforesaid three gold bars. 5. The record placed before this Court contains a document described by the Respondent as the statement of the Petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Act on 25.02.2022. The said document records that the Petitioner had crossed the Green Channel without declaring the gold bars, was aware of the requirement of payment of Customs duty on goods exceeding the permissible baggage allowance and had intentionally not declared the goods. The document furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her records that the Petitioner stated that the recovered items did not belong to him, admitted his omission and commission, was aware that Customs duty was payable on import of the goods and agreed with the description, quantity and value as assessed by the Department. 11. The said statement further records that the Petitioner did not require any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing and that the statement had been tendered voluntarily, without duress, pressure or threat, after being understood in vernacular. 12. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) 666/2026 disputes the circumstances in which the aforesaid documents came to be signed. He asserts that he knows only the Uzbek language, that there was an altercation with the Customs officials regarding his eligibility to bring the jewellery and the duty payable thereon, and that he was made to sign documents which had already been prepared as well as certain blank papers, without the assistance of a translator. He also relies upon CCTV footage to contend that the Department's version regarding non-declaration is incorrect. 13. In both Petitions, it is not disputed that the goods continue to remain with the Customs Department and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the case of Mohammad Sadiq, it was further submitted that the document relied upon by the Respondent is not in the Petitioner's handwriting and that the Petitioner has specifically alleged that he was made to sign documents which had already been prepared. It was also submitted that the Respondent has not produced the CCTV footage despite the same having been sought. 15.7. In the case of Ulugbek Zokirov, it was submitted that the Petitioner did not know any language other than Uzbek and that there is no material to demonstrate that the contents of the documents relied upon by the Respondent were explained to him through a translator. It was submitted that the alleged statement, therefore, cannot be treated as a voluntary and informed waiver of statutory rights. 15.8. It was lastly submitted that the Petitioners had declared the goods and were willing to pay the applicable Customs duty and that the allegations of Green Channel violation and liability to confiscation are themselves disputed questions which cannot justify continued detention of the goods contrary to Section 110(2) of the Act. 16. Contentions of the Respondent 16.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the outset, it is necessary to notice the statutory scheme. Section 110(2) of the Act provides that where goods are seized under Section 110(1), and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. The first proviso permits the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to extend the period by a further period not exceeding six months, subject to the person concerned being informed before expiry of the prescribed period. 19. The Supreme Court in Jatin Ahuja (supra) has authoritatively considered the consequence of failure to comply with Section 110(2). The Supreme Court has held that the statutory period for issuance of notice is mandatory and that, in the absence of notice within the prescribed or validly extended period, the consequence contemplated by Section 110(2) is return of the seized goods. The Supreme Court has also clarified that the period for issuance of notice is prescribed by Section 110(2), while Section 124 operates in a distinct field. 20. Thus, there can be no dispute with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded and alleges that he was made to sign documents which had already been prepared. The Petitioner also disputes the manner in which the proceedings took place and relies upon the non-production of CCTV footage. 27. In the case of Ulugbek Zokirov, the statement dated 24.02.2024 similarly records that the Petitioner was intercepted after crossing the Green Channel, that the jewellery was recovered from him and that he did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. The Petitioner, however, specifically asserts that he knows only the Uzbek language and that he was made to sign documents without the contents being explained to him through a translator. He also alleges coercion and relies upon CCTV footage in support of his version. 28. Thus, although the factual circumstances of the two Petitioners are not identical, the nature of the controversy which arises from the respective documents is substantially the same. In each case, the Respondent relies upon a contemporaneous document which records an alleged voluntary decision on the part of the passenger not to require a Show Cause Notice and personal hearing, whereas the passenger disputes the circumstances in which th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... complete record and determine the legal effect of the contemporaneous documents in accordance with the statutory scheme. This would include consideration of whether the proceedings relied upon by the Department constituted a valid oral notice within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 124 and, consequently, whether the requirements of Section 110(2) stood satisfied. 35. This Court is also mindful that no Order-in-Original has yet been passed in either matter. The Petitioners seek, in substance, a final determination by this Court that the Department has lost the authority to proceed against the goods and that the goods must be released unconditionally. Such a determination, in the peculiar factual circumstances of the present cases, would require adjudication of the disputed factual questions referred to above. 36. This Court is not persuaded that such an evidentiary exercise ought to be undertaken in the present proceedings, particularly when the competent adjudicating authority has not yet considered the Petitioners' objections and the Respondent has undertaken to afford the Petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing and to complete the adjudication proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rictly in accordance with law. In particular, the authority shall consider the Petitioners' objections concerning the statements purportedly recorded under Section 108, the circumstances in which the documents were executed, the alleged waiver of Show Cause Notice and personal hearing, and the applicability and consequence of Section 110(2). 43. The Respondent cannot, however, take advantage of the pendency of these Petitions to indefinitely retain the goods. The adjudication shall be undertaken expeditiously and in accordance with the statutory scheme. The competent authority shall also bear in mind the binding principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Jatin Ahuja (supra) and the decisions of this Court concerning Section 124. 44. In view of the undertaking furnished by the Respondent, the respective Petitioners shall appear before the competent adjudicating authority, personally or through a duly authorised representative, on 26.09.2026 at 2:30 pm. The competent authority shall afford each Petitioner a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and shall thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 45. The adjudication proceedings in each case shall be....