MOHAMMAD SADIQ vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

W.P.(C)-2255/2026HC Delhi02 September 202618 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Mohammad Sadiq (an Indian citizen) and Ulugbek Zokirov (an Uzbek national), arrived at Delhi Airport on 25.02.2022 and 24.02.2024 respectively, with undeclared gold/gold jewellery. In Sadiq's case, 253.2 grams of gold bars were found, and a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded, wherein he allegedly waived the requirement of a Show Cause Notice. In Zokirov's case, 230 grams of gold jewellery were recovered, and a similar statement under Section 108 was recorded, with allegations of signing documents without understanding and coercion. In both cases, the goods remain with the Customs Department, and no Order-in-Original has been passed. The petitioners seek the release of the gold and waiver of detention charges. The Respondent stated that adjudication proceedings could be completed in a time-bound manner.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the alleged Green Channel violation, declaration or non-declaration of goods, ownership, importability, liability to confiscation, duty payable, redemption fine, or penalty. The Court clarified that the dismissal of the petitions does not affirm the Department's contention that a mere waiver of a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing satisfies the requirements of Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Act. The competent adjudicating authority is directed to consider the objections of the Petitioners independently, including those concerning the Section 108 statements, circumstances of document execution, alleged waiver, and the applicability of Section 110(2). The adjudication must be undertaken expeditiously, within six weeks from the date of appearance, and the authority must consider the Supreme Court's ruling in Jatin Ahuja. The prayer for unconditional release of goods and waiver of detention charges was not granted at this stage, and these will abide by the determination of the adjudicating authority. The petitions were dismissed with these directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the continued detention of the seized gold/gold jewellery by the Customs Department, beyond the period contemplated under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, without issuance of a Show Cause Notice under Section 124 thereof, warrants their release? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962). Assessee's contentions: The Petitioner(s) argued that Section 110(2) of the Act mandates a notice under Section 124(a) within a specified period. As this period has expired without such notice, and there's no evidence of extension, the seized goods are liable to be returned. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja, which held that Section 110(2) has mandatory operation and goods must be returned if no notice is given within the prescribed period. Revenue's contentions: The Respondent contended that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act, wherein the Petitioners allegedly waived the requirement of a Show Cause Notice and personal hearing, constitute compliance. They argued that the Petitioners' subsequent conduct, including delay in approaching the court (in Sadiq's case) and the factual disputes regarding the circumstances of signing the statements (in Zokirov's case), should be considered by the adjudicating authority.

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

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 2255/2026
W.P.(C) 666/2026

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

W.P.(C) 2255/2026 & connected matter $~ * 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. DLHC010059042026 + W.P.(C) 2255/2026

MOHAMMAD SADIQ

.....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.

# CNR No. DLHC010012042026 + W.P.(C) 666/2026

ULUGBEK ZOKIROV

.....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

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 →