MOHAMMAD UMAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

W.P.(C)-42/2026HC Delhi02 September 202613 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Mohammad Umar, an Indian citizen, arrived at Delhi Airport from Medina on April 10, 2023, with two gold bars weighing 233 grams. These were detained, and a receipt was signed by the Petitioner acknowledging detention at his request. A statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, where the Petitioner admitted possession of the gold, acknowledged it was undeclared, and stated he did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. On May 8, 2023, the Petitioner submitted a written request for release, acknowledging he opted for the Green Channel without declaring dutiable items and stating he did not want a written Show Cause Notice or personal hearing, having received an oral one. No written Show Cause Notice was issued. The Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking unconditional release of the gold bars and waiver of detention charges.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Petitioner failed to establish an undisputed case of statutory violation warranting a mandamus for the release of the goods. While acknowledging that Section 110(2) mandates a Show Cause Notice and that the first proviso to Section 124 permits oral notices at the request of the person concerned, the Court found that the Petitioner's case could not be decided solely on his assertion of no notice. The Court relied on the Petitioner's written acknowledgement dated 08.05.2023, stating he received an oral Show Cause Notice and did not want a written one, and his Section 108 statement waiving the need for a Show Cause Notice and personal hearing. The Court noted that the Petitioner had not adequately explained why he made such specific recitals in his written request, which also contained an admission of opting for the Green Channel without declaration. The Detention Receipt also recorded the goods were detained at his request and sealed in his presence over his signature. The Court concluded that it could not, in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, accept the Petitioner's disputed version of events over contemporaneous documents bearing his own signatures. The Court explicitly stated it had not adjudicated upon the ultimate liability to confiscation or penalty, nor expressed a final opinion on the confiscation of the gold bars, leaving those matters to be dealt with by the competent authority. The dismissal of the petition was based on the particular factual record and the nature of the relief sought, not as an approval of mechanical waivers.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a direction for the release of the two gold bars on the ground that statutory requirements under Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, were not complied with, specifically regarding the issuance of a Show Cause Notice, despite his statement and written request acknowledging an oral notice and waiving a written one? Assessee's Contentions: - Section 110(2) mandates a Show Cause Notice within six months of seizure, extendable by six months. The maximum period has expired, making continued detention impermissible. - An oral Show Cause Notice cannot be presumed; Section 124 requires informing the person of grounds for confiscation or penalty. - The Section 108 statement cannot substitute a Show Cause Notice. The Petitioner disputes the voluntariness and correctness of this statement, alleging he was made to sign departmental documents. CCTV footage would allegedly prove his declaration at the Red Channel. - The pre-printed request dated 08.05.2023 is not a valid waiver of statutory requirements under Section 124, citing judgments in Ms. Shubhangi Gupta, Amit Kumar, and Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja. Revenue's Contentions: - The Petitioner's case is based on a factually incorrect premise; the contemporaneous record shows he crossed the Green Channel without declaring the gold and voluntarily admitted it in his Section 108 statement. - The Petitioner's written request dated 08.05.2023, acknowledging receipt of an oral Show Cause Notice and waiving a written one, along with his Section 108 statement, constitutes sufficient compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 110,Section 124,Section 108

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 42/2026 $~ * 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. DLHC010000122026 + W.P.(C) 42/2026

MOHAMMAD UMAR

.....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. Aditya Singla, SSC-CBIC with Mr. Arya, Mr. Dhananjay Gautam, Mr. Akhil Sharma, Ms. Adv Sakshi Chandna and Mr. Nehaol, 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 Petitioner is entitled to a direction for release of two gold bars weighing 233 grams, o

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 →