TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aived and that an oral Show Cause Notice had been issued. 2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the Order-in-Original dated 20.08.2024 was dismissed. The Petitioner further seeks release of the gold bar weighing 116 grams, which was detained/seized by the Customs authorities on 02.06.2024, as also waiver of the detention/warehouse charges, if any. 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 Bahrain on 02.06.2024. Upon interception by the Customs authorities after he had crossed the Green Channel, one gold bar, engraved with the marking "NAIF", weighing 116 grams and stated to be of 999 purity, was recovered from him. The said gold bar was detained by the Customs authorities vide Detention Receipt No. 4546 dated 02.06.2024. The Detention Receipt records, inter alia, that the gold bar was repacked ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dismissed on limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) was also directed to afford a personal hearing to the Petitioner and pass an order within the stipulated period. 10. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner preferred an appeal against the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal dated 27.08.2025, dismissed the appeal and upheld the action taken by the adjudicating authority. 11. The Petitioner thereafter filed the present Petition challenging the Order-in-Appeal. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 12. Contentions on behalf of the Petitioner 12.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that admittedly no written Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner before the Order-in-Original dated 20.08.2024 came to be passed. It was submitted that the requirement contained in Section 124 of the Act is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with merely on the basis of a purported statement attributed to the Petitioner. 12.2. It was submitted that the document dated 02.06.2024 relied upon by the Respondent as a statement under Section 108 of the Act is not, in law, a valid statement recorded under the said provision. It was submitted that the Pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alleged violation of principles of natural justice and the action is alleged to be without jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors., Civil Appeal No.5393/2010, decided on 01.02.2023. 13. Contentions on behalf of the Respondent 13.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the present Petition ought not to be entertained in view of the efficacious statutory remedy available to the Petitioner under the Act. It was submitted that, against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.08.2025, the Petitioner has a remedy of revision before the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Act, the Impugned Order being one relating to goods imported as baggage. It was, therefore, contended that the Petitioner cannot bypass the statutory remedy and invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court merely because the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone against him. 13.2. It was submitted that the Petitioner was intercepted after he had crossed the Green Channel and the gold bar was recovered from his possession. It was contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned counsel for the Respondent has also stated that, without prejudice to the stand taken in the Impugned Orders, the Department 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. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS 14. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record. 15. At the outset, it is necessary to notice that the present Petition arises after the Petitioner has already availed the statutory appellate remedy against the Order-in-Original dated 20.08.2024. The Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the appeal and passed the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.08.2025, which is the order impugned in the present proceedings. 16. The Customs Act itself provides a further statutory remedy in respect of an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. Section 129A(1) of the Act excludes from the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal an appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) where such order relates, inter alia, to goods imported or exported as baggage. Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to him, the document is not a valid statement under Section 108 of the Act and was prepared and signed in circumstances which did not permit the Petitioner to understand its contents. The Petitioner has also alleged coercion and has disputed the voluntariness of the document. The Respondent, on the other hand, asserts that the statement was voluntarily tendered and was never retracted. 22. Similarly, the Petitioner disputes that the recital that he did not require a Show Cause Notice amounted to a request for an oral Show Cause Notice under the first proviso to Section 124. The Respondent takes a contrary position and additionally asserts that an oral Show Cause Notice was actually issued on 02.06.2024. 23. These competing assertions assume significance because the relief sought by the Petitioner would require this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to examine the factual circumstances in which the documents were executed and to determine the effect thereof. In particular, it would require an examination of whether the Petitioner voluntarily made the statement attributed to him, whether the alleged request was in fact made, what was communicated to him orally by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Notice. 29. There is another circumstance which persuades this Court not to undertake an adjudication of these disputed issues in the present proceedings. The Respondent, during the course of hearing, has fairly stated that the Department is willing to afford the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and to reconsider the matter in accordance with law within a time-bound period. This statement is taken on record. 30. The aforesaid statement, however, cannot be understood as permitting the Respondent to sustain the confiscation merely on the basis of the alleged waiver or to dispense with any statutory requirement which is otherwise applicable. The competent authority, while undertaking the proceedings pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, shall consider all the contentions available to the Petitioner in accordance with law, including the contention regarding Section 124 of the Act, the alleged absence of a Show Cause Notice, the alleged oral Show Cause Notice, the legal effect of the statement dated 02.06.2024 and the communication dated 07.06.2024, as also the effect, if any, of the judgment in Jatin Ahuja (supra). 31. It is clarified that this Court has ....