TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent to release one gold bar weighing 100 grams, detained/seized vide Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/19-12-2023/003353 dated 19.12.2023, and further seeks a direction that no detention/warehouse charges be recovered from her at the time of release. 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 citizen, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 19.12.2023 by Flight No. 6E-0195. The Petitioner had travelled to Saudi Arabia for Umrah. Upon her arrival, she was intercepted by the Customs authorities after she had crossed the Green Channel. 5. A Detention Receipt bearing No. DR/INDEL4/19-12-2023/003353 was issued on 19.12.2023. The receipt records, inter alia, that one plastic cut bottle containing one yellow bar, having the marking "100 grams fine gold 999.9", appearing to be made of gold, had been detained/seized. The reason recorded in the receipt is "Green Channel Violation". The Detention Receipt further records the weight of the gold bar as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alid notice for the purposes of Section 110(2) of the Act. 8.3. It was contended that the statement relied upon by the Department cannot be treated as a valid statement under Section 108 of the Act, as it is not in the Petitioner's handwriting and, according to the Petitioner, was prepared by the Customs officials and merely made to be signed by her. The Petitioner also alleges that the contents were not properly explained to her and that the statement was not voluntary. 8.4. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024, decided on 11.09.2025, to submit that the consequence of non-issuance of notice within the statutory period prescribed under Section 110(2) is that the seizure ceases to operate and the goods are liable to be returned. 9. Contentions of the Respondent 9.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner's own statement dated 19.12.2023 constitutes a voluntary admission regarding the contravention. It is submitted that the Petitioner expressly stated that she did not require a show-cause notice or personal hearing and agreed to pay the applicabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e statutory consequence cannot be defeated by continued retention of the seized goods by the Customs authorities. 14. The question in the present case, however, is somewhat different. The Petitioner's entire case proceeds on the premise that no show-cause notice was issued. The Respondent, on the other hand, has specifically asserted that an oral show-cause notice was issued on 19.12.2023 under the first proviso to Section 124 of the Act. 15. This distinction is material. The first proviso to Section 124 expressly contemplates that the notice referred to in clause (a), as well as the representation referred to in clause (b), may, at the request of the person concerned, be oral. Therefore, the statutory scheme does not confine a Section 124(a) notice, in every case, to a written document. 16. This Court is conscious of the decision of this Court in Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., W.P.(C) 10772/2024, decided on 04.11.2024, wherein the Court rejected the Revenue's contention that the statutory notice could simply be dispensed with on the basis of a purported waiver by the petitioner. In that case, the Revenue had not asserted in its counter-affidavit th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise of writ jurisdiction, to conduct a roving factual enquiry into the circumstances in which the statement was recorded, particularly when the Petitioner seeks to rely upon CCTV footage and alleges coercion, while the Respondent relies upon the contemporaneous statement and the proceedings recorded on 19.12.2023. Such an enquiry would necessarily require examination of evidence and appreciation of disputed factual material. 22. It is also relevant that the Petitioner does not merely seek enforcement of an admitted statutory right arising from an undisputed absence of notice. The foundational factual assertion itself, namely, that no oral show-cause notice was issued, is disputed by the Respondent. The Respondent has specifically recorded 19.12.2023 as the date of the oral show-cause notice. 23. In this regard, the decision in Jatin Ahuja (supra) does not assist the Petitioner beyond the proposition that Section 110(2) operates mandatorily where the requisite notice under Section 124(a) has not been issued within the statutory period. The said decision does not dispense with the necessity of determining, in an appropriate case, whether a notice contemplated by Section 124(a) ....