IRFAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

W.P.(C)-16386/2025HC Delhi02 September 20269 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, an Indian citizen, arrived at Delhi Airport on December 6, 2020, from Riyadh. Customs authorities intercepted him after he crossed the Green Channel and recovered a 116-gram gold bar. A statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, where the Petitioner allegedly admitted to attempting to clear the gold without declaration or duty payment and stated he did not require a show cause notice. The gold bar was confiscated, and a penalty was imposed by an Order-in-Original dated June 7, 2023. The Petitioner claims he was unaware of this order until September 26, 2025, and that he was not served with a show cause notice or given an effective hearing. He filed a writ petition in 2025 seeking the release of the gold bar and challenging the Order-in-Original. The Petitioner did not pursue any action between December 2020 and 2025, nor did he file a statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023. The Court reasoned that the Petitioner's grievances, including allegations of non-service of a show cause notice, denial of hearing, and the validity of the Section 108 statement, required an examination of the adjudication record and material, which is best suited for the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court noted that while the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, the principle of exhausting such remedies is well-recognized. The significant delay of several years in approaching the Court, despite the Petitioner's admitted awareness of the seizure and the subsequent Order-in-Original, weighed heavily against exercising discretionary writ jurisdiction. The Petitioner's prolonged inaction and failure to challenge the Order-in-Original before the appellate authority were considered critical factors. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Petitioner's challenge to the Order-in-Original, including contentions related to Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Act, waiver of notice, the Section 108 statement, the Green Channel violation, or the confiscation and penalty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court ought to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine a challenge to the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023, when the Petitioner approached the Court in 2025 after several years of inactivity and the order is amenable to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962? (Question of law and fact, turning on Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962). Assessee's Contentions: The detention of the gold bar could not continue beyond the period prescribed under Section 110(2) without a show cause notice under Section 124. Reliance was placed on Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja and Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. The statement recorded under Section 108 was disputed as not genuine or legally valid for waiving the show cause notice requirement. The statement was a pre-typed document, not in the Petitioner's handwriting, and signed without proper explanation. Even if treated as a Section 108 statement, it cannot waive mandatory Section 124 requirements. The findings regarding the Green Channel violation and import entitlement were also questioned. Revenue's Contentions: The Petitioner voluntarily tendered his statement on December 6, 2020, expressly waiving the need for a show cause notice and agreeing to a decision on merits. The Petitioner did not respond to subsequent communications or the public notice regarding seized goods and remained inactive for years. The present petition, filed in 2025, is liable to be dismissed due to delay and laches, and the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 110(2),Section 124,Section 128,Section 111,Section 112(a),Section 112(b),Section 114AA,Section 108

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 16386/2026
W.P.(C) 16386/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

W.P.(C) 16386/2026 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Judgment reserved on: 19.08.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 02.09.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 02.09.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010828952025 + W.P.(C) 16386/2025

IRFAN

.....Petitioner Through: Dr. Ashutosh, Ms. Fatima, Mr. Rohit Swarup, Mr. Dalip Singh, Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh, Mr. Pravej Hasan, Mr. Abhijeet Sagar, Mr. S.Vijaykanth, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

.....Respondent Through: Sh. Atul Tripathi, SSC-CBIC Mr. Akshay Sagar and Mr. Shubham Mishra, 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 principal issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine a challenge to the Order-in-Original dated 07.06.2023, whereby the gold bar weighing 116 grams seized f

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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →