TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, vide Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/20-01-2024/003576 dated 20.01.2024. The principal contention of the Petitioner is that the continued detention of the said gold bars is impermissible in law as, according to him, no show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Act was issued within the statutory period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act. 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 holding Indian Passport No. U5433321, had travelled to Saudi Arabia on 30.10.2023 for performing Umrah. Upon his return to India on 20.01.2024 by Flight No. EY-224 from Abu Dhabi to New Delhi, three yellow-metal bars, each bearing the marking "1 Ounce Fine Gold 999.9" and collectively weighing 93 grams, were recovered from his possession at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. The Detention Receipt dated 20.01.2024 records the reason for detention/seizure as "Green Channel violation" and describes the goods as three gold bars weighing 93 grams. The receipt further recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t further states that if the goods were not cleared within two months of detention, or within such period as may be extended by the competent authority, action for disposal of the goods under the relevant provisions of the Act would be initiated. 9. The record placed before the Court does not disclose any written show-cause notice issued to the Petitioner in respect of the aforesaid goods. The Respondent, however, has placed on record a chart setting out the particulars of the proceedings undertaken in the matter. In the said chart, the Respondent has recorded 20.01.2024 as the date of the oral show-cause notice. The chart also records that the Petitioner had tendered the statement under Section 108 of the Act and had stated therein that he did not require a show-cause notice or personal hearing. The record further reflects that the goods have not been appraised. The Respondent has stated that the Petitioner did not appear before the Department for appraisement of the detained goods. 10. The Petitioner thereafter instituted the present Petition seeking, inter alia, release of the three gold bars weighing 93 grams. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 11. Contentions on behalf of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms & Ors., W.P.(C.) 10772/2024, to contend that the statutory requirements under Sections 110(2) and 124 cannot be circumvented by treating the requirement of issuance of a show-cause notice as having been waived. It was submitted that once the statutory period expires without a valid show-cause notice, the seizure stands dissolved and the goods cannot thereafter be retained for the purpose of confiscation. The Petitioner accordingly seeks unconditional release of the gold bars. 11.5. It was lastly contended that the Respondent cannot seek to justify continued detention by directing the Petitioner to participate in a future adjudication or by offering provisional release. According to learned counsel, once the statutory consequence under Section 110(2) has ensued, there is no question of reviving the seizure through subsequent proceedings. 12. Contentions on behalf of the Respondent 12.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petition is misconceived, as the Petitioner was intercepted after crossing the Green Channel and the three gold bars were recovered from his person. The Petitioner thereafter voluntarily tendered his statement under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i and that three gold bars, collectively weighing 93 grams, were recovered from his possession after he had crossed the Green Channel. The Detention Receipt dated 20.01.2024 records the reason for detention/seizure as "Green Channel violation". The Petitioner also admittedly signed the said Detention Receipt. 15. It is also not in dispute that no separate written show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Act was issued to the Petitioner. The Respondent, however, has placed on record a chart of the proceedings undertaken in the matter, wherein 20.01.2024 has been recorded as the date of the oral show-cause notice. The Respondent has also relied upon the statement of the Petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Act on the same date. 16. The said statement records that the Petitioner was intercepted after crossing the Green Channel and that three yellow-metal bars were recovered from him, which, according to the statement, had been concealed in the belt worn by him. The Petitioner is further recorded to have admitted that he had intentionally not declared the goods and that he was aware of the Customs duty payable thereon. He is also recorded to have agreed to the descripti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e referred to in clause (a), as also the representation referred to in clause (b), may, at the request of the person concerned, be oral. The Respondent's specific case before this Court is that the Petitioner was dealt with on 20.01.2024 itself and that the proceedings undertaken on that date included an oral show-cause notice. The proceedings chart placed on record by the Respondent specifically records 20.01.2024 as the date of the oral show-cause notice. 23. Thus, the question which arises is not merely whether a formal written show-cause notice was issued, but whether the proceedings undertaken on 20.01.2024 constituted compliance with the requirements of Section 124 of the Act and, in particular, whether the Petitioner was informed of the grounds on which confiscation of the goods and/or imposition of penalty was proposed and was afforded the opportunity contemplated by the statutory scheme. 24. In this regard, the decision of this Court in Shubhangi Gupta (supra) relied upon by the Petitioner, does not warrant a different conclusion at this stage. In the said case, the Revenue had not asserted that an oral show-cause notice had actually been issued to the petitioner. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner's statement regarding the goods and the alleged violation. The effect of these proceedings and their compliance with Section 124 are matters which should first be considered by the competent adjudicating authority. 29. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Jatin Ahuja (supra) does not require this Court to direct unconditional release of the goods without first determining whether the statutory requirement of notice stood satisfied in the facts of the present case. The ratio of the said judgment applies where the statutory requirement has not been complied with within the prescribed period. The question whether there was such compliance in the present case cannot be conclusively determined merely from the absence of a written notice, particularly in view of the Respondent's specific case regarding the oral show-cause notice dated 20.01.2024. 30. The Respondent has also stated before this Court that it is ready and willing to afford the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law within a time-bound period. The Petitioner would, therefore, have an adequate opportunity before the competent authority to place on record his....