MOHD ARIF vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

W.P.(C)-5411/2026HC Delhi02 September 202618 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Mohd Arif, arrived at Delhi Airport on 17.02.2024 from Riyadh and opted for the Green Channel. Customs authorities intercepted him and recovered two gold bars weighing 233 grams, valued at Rs. 13,07,412/-. The Petitioner made a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, admitting possession, agreeing to the assessment, and stating he did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. Subsequently, on 22.04.2024, he submitted a written request for release of goods, reiterating his waiver of a written Show Cause Notice and personal hearing. The Joint Commissioner of Customs passed an Order-in-Original (OIO) on 14.06.2024, confiscating the gold under Sections 111(d), 111(j), 111(l), and 111(m) of the Act, and imposing a penalty under Section 112. The Petitioner claims the OIO was not served and he only obtained a copy on 19.02.2026, leading him to file a writ petition in 2026.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it ought not to examine the legality and validity of the Order-in-Original as the Petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court found considerable force in the Respondent's contention concerning delay, noting that the Impugned OIO was passed on 14.06.2024 and dispatched on 21.06.2024, while the present Petition was instituted only in 2026. Even accepting the Petitioner's assertion of receiving a copy on 19.02.2026, the delay and the Petitioner's conduct did not warrant invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the challenge raised concerned the manner in which jurisdiction was exercised, not an absence of jurisdiction, and that such matters could be examined by the appellate authority. The Petitioner's reliance on the principle that an act must be done in the prescribed manner was acknowledged, but the question of compliance required examination of documents and circumstances, which did not justify bypassing the appellate remedy after substantial delay. The plea of violation of natural justice was not accepted as an automatic exception to the rule of alternative remedy. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the Petitioner's challenge to the confiscation or penalty, leaving these issues for the appellate forum.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court ought to examine the legality and validity of an Order-in-Original passed by the competent Customs authority, which is appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, when the challenge raises questions concerning the issuance/waiver of a Show Cause Notice, opportunity of personal hearing, and the circumstances under which the Petitioner made statements and representations. (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962). Assessee's contentions: The Impugned OIO is liable to be set aside for violating mandatory requirements of Sections 110 and 124 of the Act and principles of natural justice, as no valid Show Cause Notice or effective personal hearing was afforded. The statement under Section 108 is invalid due to improper recording and non-compliance with departmental instructions, and was not voluntary or sufficient for waiver. The Petitioner also argues the OIO was not served and he approached the court promptly upon receiving a copy. Revenue's contentions: The Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 128 of the Act. The Petitioner's conduct, including the statement under Section 108 and the request on 22.04.2024, demonstrates participation and waiver of statutory safeguards. The Petitioner has approached the court after substantial delay, disentitling him to extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the decision in Glaxo Smith Kline (supra).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 128,Section 110,Section 124,Section 108,Section 111(d),Section 111(j),Section 111(l),Section 111(m),Section 125,Section 112,Section 77

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 5411/2026 $~ * 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. DLHC010170562026 + W.P.(C) 5411/2026

MOHD ARIF

.....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. Aakarsh Srivastava, Senior Standing Counsel-Customs with Mr. Ashish Bansal, Mr. Anand Pandey, Mr. Ankit Kumar and Mr. Dhananjay Parth, 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 this Court ought to examine the legality and validity of an Order-in-Original passed by the competent Customs authority, when the said

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 128

All 27 judgments and leading authorities on Section 128 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →