NAJIR vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
What were the facts?
The Petitioner, an Indian citizen returning from Saudi Arabia on 20.01.2024, was intercepted at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, with three gold bars weighing 93 grams concealed in his belt. The Customs Authorities seized the gold bars, citing "Green Channel violation." A statement was recorded from the Petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, where he admitted to the recovery, concealment, and non-declaration of the gold, and stated he did not require a show-cause notice or personal hearing. The Detention Receipt was issued on the same date. The Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking unconditional release of the gold bars, arguing that no written show-cause notice was issued within the statutory period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Petitioner is not entitled to unconditional release of the gold bars at this stage. While no written show-cause notice was issued, the Respondent asserted that an oral show-cause notice was given on 20.01.2024, and the Petitioner's contemporaneous statement under Section 108 waived the need for a formal notice and personal hearing. The Court found that the question of whether the proceedings on 20.01.2024 constituted compliance with Section 124, including the oral notice and the voluntariness of the Petitioner's statement, requires adjudication by the competent authority. The Court declined to decide these issues in a writ petition, especially when the Respondent offered a personal hearing and adjudication within a time-bound period. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, confiscation, duty, fine, or penalty, leaving these matters for the competent authority.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the unconditional release of the three gold bars weighing 93 grams on the ground that no written show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, was issued within the period contemplated under Section 110(2) of the Act? Assessee's arguments: The continued detention of the gold bars is contrary to Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Act, as no written show-cause notice was issued within the statutory period. Upon expiry of this period, the seizure loses legal efficacy, and the goods must be released unconditionally. The Respondent cannot rely on the statement recorded under Section 108, as it was a pre-typed document obtained under coercion, without contents being explained, and the Petitioner was compelled to sign blank papers. There can be no waiver of the statutory requirement of a show-cause notice under Section 124. Revenue's arguments: The Respondent contended that an oral show-cause notice was issued on 20.01.2024, and the Petitioner's statement under Section 108, wherein he waived the requirement of a show-cause notice and personal hearing, constitutes compliance. The Petitioner failed to appear for appraisement of the goods.
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) 16994/2025 $~ * 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. DLHC010874872025 + W.P.(C) 16994/2025
NAJIR
.....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: Mr. Vishal Chadha, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Chandan 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.:
The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the Petitioner is entitled to unconditional release of three gold bars, collectively weighing 93 grams, detained/seized by the Customs Authorities on 20.01.2024, on the ground that no show-cause notice under
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.
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
- Mukeshbhai Vithalbhai Javia, Rajkot vs ITO Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 649/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Mukeshbhai Vithalbhai Javia, Rajkot vs ACIT/DCIT, Circle 1(1), RajkotITA 648/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Priynka Singhal, New Delhi vs ITO Ward 8(1), DelhiITA 1167/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Alka Nyati, Indore vs ITO Dhar, DharITA 430/IND/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2011-2012
- Nahid Zakiya Through Spa Mohammad Uzair vs Commissioner of CustomsW.P.(C)-1037/20263 Sept 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mbd Alchemie Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 7 Oct 2026
- Asa Corporate Catalyst INDIA Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 7 Oct 2026
- Reliable Accessories Private Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii / Avato Ward 61,Zone 5,Delhi & Ors.Delhi · 7 Oct 2026
- M/S Cresent Stationers vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Ward 3 Delhi & Ors.Delhi · 7 Oct 2026
- Drum Roll Advertising Private Limited Vani Sood vs. Commissioner Of Dgst & Ors.Delhi · 7 Oct 2026