FAHIM AHMAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

W.P.(C)-17561/2025HC Delhi02 September 202615 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Fahim Ahmad, an Indian national, arrived at Delhi airport from Bahrain on 02.06.2024. Customs authorities intercepted him after he crossed the Green Channel and recovered a 116-gram gold bar. The gold bar was detained, and the Petitioner's statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioner initially disowned the gold bar but later, through an authorized representative, claimed ownership and allegedly waived the requirement for a written Show Cause Notice (SCN) and personal hearing (PH) via a letter dated 07.06.2024. An oral SCN was purportedly issued. The adjudicating authority ordered absolute confiscation of the gold and imposed a penalty. The Petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was dismissed. He then filed a writ petition challenging the appellate order.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that there was a direct dispute regarding what transpired between the Petitioner and the Customs authorities, involving the character, voluntariness, and legal effect of contemporaneous documents. These disputed matters could not be appropriately considered in writ proceedings and were better suited for statutory proceedings where the entire record could be examined. The Court acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision in Jatin Ahuja but stated that its applicability and precise application to the alleged oral SCN and documents could be raised before the statutory revisional authority. The Court noted the Respondent's statement that they were willing to afford the Petitioner a personal hearing and reconsider the matter. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, granting liberty to the Petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Order-in-Appeal. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, including the Green Channel violation, ownership of the gold, validity of the statement, or legality of confiscation and penalty, leaving all such issues open for the competent authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the absolute confiscation of the gold bar and the consequential penalty imposed upon the Petitioner can be sustained in the absence of a written Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, where the Respondent relies on the Petitioner's alleged statement under Section 108 and a subsequent communication to contend that the requirement of a Show Cause Notice and personal hearing was waived, and an oral Show Cause Notice was issued. Assessee's Arguments: - No written Show Cause Notice was issued, and Section 124 of the Act mandates it. - The document dated 02.06.2024 is not a valid statement under Section 108 as no summons were issued, and the recital about not needing SCN/PH is insufficient for waiver or request for oral SCN. - Allegations of coercion and documents being signed without proper explanation cannot be dismissed due to lack of contemporaneous retraction. - Even if the document is a Section 108 statement, it doesn't constitute a valid request for an oral SCN as per the first proviso to Section 124. - Relied on Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No.3489/2024, for the strict adherence to statutory schemes. Revenue's Arguments: - An oral Show Cause Notice was issued on 02.06.2024 under the first proviso to Section 124. - The Petitioner, through his statement under Section 108 and the letter dated 07.06.2024, voluntarily waived the requirement of a written SCN and personal hearing. - The Petitioner's initial disowning of the gold bar and subsequent claim through a representative indicate he was acting as a carrier.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 124,Section 108,Section 112,Section 114,Section 128,Section 110,Section 129DD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 17561/2025 $~ * 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. DLHC010913852025 + W.P.(C) 17561/2025

FAHIM AHMAD

.....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: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr. Apurv Yadav and Mr. Naman Choula, 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 the absolute confiscation of the gold bar belonging to the Petitioner, and the consequential penalty imposed upon him, can be sustained in the absence of a written Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of

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 →