AWESH KARMI FUNDREIMAYUM vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

W.P.(C)-152/2026HC Delhi02 September 202614 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Awesh Karmi Fundreimayum, an Indian citizen, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on February 27, 2024, after travelling from Jeddah via Bahrain. He was intercepted by Customs authorities after crossing the Green Channel. Eight gold bars, weighing 290 grams and valued at approximately ₹16,00,000 (implied from context of gold value), were seized from him for alleged violation of the Green Channel procedure. A statement was recorded from the Petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he reportedly admitted to the recovery, ownership, non-declaration of gold, and stated he did not require a show cause notice or personal hearing. The Department claims an oral show cause notice was issued on the date of seizure. No Order-in-Original has been passed. The Petitioner filed a writ petition on January 7, 2026, seeking release of the gold bars and waiver of detention charges.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition seeking unconditional release of the gold bars at this stage was not maintainable. The Court clarified that its conclusion did not amount to accepting the Respondent's submission that a person can waive the statutory requirement of a show cause notice merely by making a statement. The ratio of Jatin Ahuja (supra) regarding the mandatory consequence of Section 110(2) remains binding. The Court found that the Petitioner had an opportunity to appear before the adjudicating authority, present his version, challenge the circumstances of the Section 108 statement, raise objections regarding the alleged oral show cause notice, and seek consideration of all material. Since no Order-in-Original had been passed, the Petitioner's challenge to the admission's evidentiary value and ultimate liability was premature. The Court directed the Petitioner to appear before the adjudicating authority on 24.09.2026 for completion of proceedings, including appraisement, and granted him a personal hearing. The adjudicating authority was directed to pass an Order-in-Original within six weeks from the Petitioner's appearance, subject to his cooperation. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations, the validity of the statement, the oral show cause notice, or the liability of the goods to confiscation or penalty, leaving these for the adjudicating authority. The question of detention/warehouse charges would abide by the adjudication outcome.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the continued detention of the gold bars seized on 27.02.2024 is permissible in the absence of a written show cause notice within the statutory period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the Petitioner's alleged waiver of a show cause notice and personal hearing in his Section 108 statement? (Mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The continued detention violates Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Act as no written show cause notice was issued within the statutory six-month period or its extension. - The Petitioner cannot waive the statutory protection under Section 124 based on a statement, especially when it's a standard-form document, citing Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. - An oral show cause notice, if any, cannot substitute the statutory requirement and must communicate grounds for confiscation/penalty. - Reliance on Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja, Civil Appeal No.3489/2024, for the principle that seized goods must be returned upon expiry of the Section 110(2) period without a Section 124(a) notice. - Disputes the validity and evidentiary value of the Section 108 statement, alleging it was not voluntarily tendered and the Petitioner was made to sign prepared documents or blank papers. - Claims he declared the gold and disputes the Green Channel violation allegations, suggesting CCTV footage would support his claims. Revenue's Contentions: - The Petitioner was intercepted after crossing the Green Channel, and gold was recovered. - The Petitioner made categorical admissions in his Section 108 statement regarding non-declaration. - The Petitioner's statement clearly indicates he did not require a show cause notice or personal hearing.

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) 152/2026 $~ * 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. DLHC010001052026 + W.P.(C) 152/2026

AWESH KARMI FUNDREIMAYUM

.....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, Adv.

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 continued detention of the gold bars seized from the Petitioner on account of alleged violation of the Green Channel procedure can be permitted in the absence of a written show cause notice, when the R

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 →