Writ Court Cannot Direct Unconditional Release Of Seized Goods When Compliance With Oral Show-Cause Notice Remains A Disputed Question Of Fact: Delhi High Court

"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." Delhi High Court, in a ruling dated September 02, 2026, held that a writ court cannot direct the unconditional release of seized goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, when the respondent authority specifically asserts that an oral show-cause notice was issued in accordance with Section 124.

A bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain observed that where the factual matrix involves disputed claims regarding the voluntariness of a statement and the nature of the proceedings conducted at the time of seizure, such issues must be adjudicated by the competent authority rather than through extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner, an Indian citizen, was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on January 20, 2024, after crossing the Green Channel, with 93 grams of gold bars. The Customs authorities detained the goods, and the petitioner purportedly signed a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitting to the violation and waiving the requirement for a formal show-cause notice and personal hearing. The petitioner later challenged the continued detention of the gold, contending that no written show-cause notice was issued within the statutory period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act, thereby rendering the seizure illegal.

The primary question before the court was whether the absence of a written show-cause notice within the statutory period under Section 110(2) mandates the unconditional release of seized goods, even when the Revenue claims that an oral show-cause notice was provided under Section 124. The court was also called upon to determine whether allegations of coercion and the disputed voluntariness of a statement recorded under Section 108 could be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Scope of Section 124

The Court noted that Section 124 of the Customs Act expressly permits the show-cause notice and the subsequent representation to be oral at the request of the person concerned. The bench emphasized that the mere absence of a written notice is not conclusive if the Revenue can demonstrate that the statutory requirements of Section 124 were substantively met through other means on the date of seizure.

Court Analyzes Disputed Facts

The bench observed that the petitioner’s allegations—that the statement was obtained through coercion, that he was forced to sign blank documents, and that CCTV footage would exonerate him—constitute disputed questions of fact. The court stated that it is not equipped to appreciate such evidence or determine the evidentiary value of a statement under Section 108 in a summary writ proceeding.

"The statutory requirements have to be satisfied in accordance with law. However, whether an oral show-cause notice was in fact given to the petitioner, what was communicated to him in the course thereof, and whether the proceedings undertaken on 20.01.2024 constituted sufficient compliance with Section 124, are matters which require examination of the contemporaneous record and the circumstances in which the statement came to be recorded."

No Automatic Release

Distinguishing the present case from the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, the court held that the ratio of that judgment applies only where there is an admitted failure to comply with statutory requirements. Since the Revenue in the instant case placed on record a proceedings chart asserting that an oral notice was provided, the court ruled that the remedy lies in adjudication by the competent authority, not immediate judicial intervention for release.

Adjudication by Competent Authority

The bench directed the customs authorities to provide the petitioner with a formal opportunity for a personal hearing. The adjudicating authority has been tasked with deciding whether the events of January 20, 2024, fulfilled the criteria set out in Section 124 of the Act. The petitioner is permitted to lead all evidence, including the disputed CCTV footage and claims of duress, before this authority.

"It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on whether the Petitioner had declared the gold bars, whether the goods were liable to confiscation, whether the Petitioner was eligible to import the same, or whether the statement dated 20.01.2024 was voluntarily tendered."

The court concluded by dismissing the writ petition, ordering that the adjudication process be completed by the authorities within four weeks from the date the petitioner appears for the hearing. This ensures that the matter is resolved on merits without indefinitely prolonging the detention of the goods while preserving the petitioner’s right to challenge the legality of the seizure before the departmental forum.

Date of Decision: 02 September 2026