MOHAMMAD JUNAID vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

W.P.(C)-6066/2026HC Delhi02 September 202617 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohammad Junaid, an Indian national, arrived at Delhi airport from Doha on July 1, 2024, and was intercepted by Customs authorities. A gold bar weighing 117 grams was recovered from his possession. A detention receipt was issued, and the petitioner's statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he admitted to not declaring the gold, agreed to pay duty, fine, and penalty, and stated he did not require a show cause notice or personal hearing. The Adjudicating Authority passed an Order-in-Original on May 28, 2025, allowing re-export of the gold upon payment of duty, redemption fine, and penalty. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) subsequently passed an Order-in-Appeal on January 21, 2026, setting aside the original order and ordering absolute confiscation of the gold bar. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Order-in-Appeal.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it ought not to interfere with the Order-in-Appeal dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) due to the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously approached the High Court, and the departmental appellate proceedings were permitted to be dealt with in the statutory appellate forum, culminating in the impugned order. The Court found no circumstance justifying bypassing the statutory remedy, as the case did not involve a challenge to the vires of any statutory provision or an authority wholly lacking jurisdiction. The contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice was also deemed a matter that could be examined by the Revisional Authority. The Court explicitly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's contentions concerning the validity of the alleged oral show cause notice, the statement dated 01.07.2024, the alleged waiver, the applicability of Section 110(2), compliance with Section 124, or the legality of the absolute confiscation. The petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, leaving all questions on merits open for consideration by the competent Revisional Authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the Order-in-Appeal dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) when an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, is available to the petitioner? Assessee's Contentions: - The impugned Order-in-Appeal is liable to be set aside due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 124 of the Act, as no written show cause notice was served. - The statement dated 01.07.2024 cannot be treated as a show cause notice under Section 124. - The alleged waiver of the requirement of a show cause notice and personal hearing in the statement dated 01.07.2024 cannot substitute the statutory requirement under Section 124. - Reliance was placed on Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., W.P.(C) 10772/2024, which held that there is no provision for waiver of the notice contemplated by Section 124. - The petitioner never requested an oral show cause notice as contemplated by the first proviso to Section 124. Revenue's Contentions: - The Respondent asserts that an oral show cause notice was given on 01.07.2024 and a personal hearing was granted on 21.05.2025, with the petitioner's authorized representative participating. - The Petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Act, which includes an explicit waiver, is legally sufficient.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 124,Section 108,Section 129DD,Section 110(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 6066/2026 $~ * 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. DLHC010194422026 + W.P.(C) 6066/2026

MOHAMMAD JUNAID

.....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: Sh. Atul Tripathi, SSC-CBIC Mr. Akshay Sagar and Mr. Shubham Mishra, 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 interfere with an Order-in- Appeal dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), whereby the or

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 →