NAHID ZAKIYA THROUGH SPA MOHAMMAD UZAIR vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

W.P.(C)-1037/2026HC Delhi03 September 202614 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nahid Zakiya, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from the UAE on June 28, 2023. After crossing the Green Channel, she was intercepted by Customs authorities, who recovered a yellow metal chain weighing 58 grams from her possession. The item was detained as a "Green Channel Violation." The petitioner provided a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, admitting she had crossed the Green Channel, the item belonged to her, she was aware of customs duty liability, and had intentionally not declared it. She also stated she did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing and agreed to the department's assessment of duty, fine, and penalty. The present Writ Petition was filed over two and a half years after the detention, seeking unconditional return of the chain and waiver of charges, asserting no notice under Section 124 of the Act was issued within the period contemplated by Section 110(2).

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. The Court found that the Petitioner had failed to make out a case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction for unconditional release. The petition suffered from unexplained and substantial delay, and crucially, the Petitioner had suppressed material contemporaneous records, specifically her Section 108 statement. This statement contained admissions regarding crossing the Green Channel, intentional non-declaration, and willingness to pay duty, fine, and penalty, and importantly, that she did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. The Court held that the Petitioner's entitlement to unconditional release could not be determined by omitting this material record. The reliance on Jatin Ahuja and Saba Simran did not assist the Petitioner as the former did not apply without examination of the complete record, and the latter depended on facts not conclusively established. The Court noted that the issue of whether the article was genuine personal jewellery depended on facts, and the Petitioner's admissions complicated this. The prayer for waiver of warehouse and handling charges was left open for the adjudicating authority. The Court directed the competent authority to complete proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months, subject to the Petitioner's cooperation. The Court clarified it had not expressed any opinion on the ultimate merits of confiscation, duty, fine, or penalty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a writ directing the unconditional return of the detained yellow metal chain on the assertion that no notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, was issued within the period contemplated under Section 110(2) thereof, and that the article constitutes her used personal jewellery. Assessee's Arguments: - The detained article is used personal jewellery and should be treated as a bona fide personal effect. - The respondent failed to issue a Show Cause Notice within the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act, making the detained article liable for return. - Reliance on Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja and Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors. for the proposition that non-compliance with statutory notice periods leads to return of goods and that genuine personal jewellery may not be treated as commercial goods. - Continued retention violates Article 300A of the Constitution. Revenue's Arguments: - The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed due to material non-disclosure, delay, and laches. - The Petitioner failed to disclose her Section 108 statement where she admitted crossing the Green Channel, intentional non-declaration, and willingness to pay duty, fine, and penalty, and stated she did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. - The Petition was filed after approximately 938 days without substantiating claims of repeated approaches to the department. - The questions regarding the article's nature, value, and applicability of baggage provisions involve disputed questions of fact not suitable for writ proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 110(2),Section 124,Section 108

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 1037/2026 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Judgment reserved on: 31.08.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 03.09.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 03.09.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010021412026 + W.P.(C) 1037/2026

NAHID ZAKIYA THROUGH SPA MOHAMMAD UZAIR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Richa Kumari, Mr. Pawan and Mr. Nagendra Yadav, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SSC along with Mr. Ashish Bansal and Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advs.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN J U D G M E N T ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1.

The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the Petitioner, after approaching this Court more than two and a half years after the detention of one yellow metal chain appearing to be gold, is entitled to a writ directing its unconditional return on the assertion that no notice under Section 124 of the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 124

All 152 judgments and leading authorities on Section 124 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →