MOHD KHALID vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

W.P.(C)-16945/2025HC Delhi02 September 202613 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohd Khalid, an Indian citizen, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Saudi Arabia on December 10, 2024. Customs authorities detained two gold bars weighing 166 grams, citing "Green Channel violation." The detention receipt indicated the goods were detained at the passenger's request and sealed in his presence. The petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, was recorded on the same day, admitting possession of the gold bars, stating they belonged to his brother, acknowledging lack of proper documents, admitting "omission and commission," and stating he "intentionally" did not declare the items. Crucially, the statement included a recital that the petitioner "also do not need any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing in the matter." No written show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act was issued, nor was an adjudication order passed. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of the gold bars.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition seeking the release of the detained gold bars at this stage is not maintainable. The Court found that the Petitioner's statement under Section 108, coupled with the Detention Receipt and the admitted position that the Petitioner did not approach the Department for appraisement or further proceedings despite an opportunity, warranted examination by the adjudicating authority. The Court reasoned that while the absence of a separate written show cause notice was noted, the Petitioner's statement waiving the need for one, and the Department's willingness to afford a personal hearing and adjudicate the matter expeditiously, meant the statutory adjudication process should be allowed to complete. The Court explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on whether the Petitioner had declared the gold bars, whether they were liable for confiscation, eligibility for import, or the voluntariness of the statement, leaving these for the adjudicating authority. The Petitioner was directed to be afforded a personal hearing and the matter to be adjudicated within four weeks of his appearance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the continued detention of the two gold bars weighing 166 grams warrants interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of a written show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, within the period prescribed by Section 110(2) of the Act? Assessee's arguments: The petitioner argued that detention cannot continue indefinitely without a notice under Section 124 within the prescribed period, relying on Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja. The petitioner contended that the recital in the Section 108 statement, "I also do not need any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing in the matter," does not constitute a valid waiver or oral show cause notice, as it does not record a request for an oral notice. The opportunity mentioned in the detention receipt for clearance within two months was also argued not to be equivalent to a Section 124 notice. Revenue's arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner voluntarily waived the requirement of a show cause notice and personal hearing through his Section 108 statement, which constitutes substantive evidence. The respondent also argued that the petitioner had an opportunity to approach the Department but did not. Reliance was placed on Sections 77 and 79 of the Act, Baggage Rules, 2016, Foreign Trade Policy, and Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. to argue the petitioner was not entitled to import the gold. The respondent also expressed readiness to provide a personal hearing and adjudicate the matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 108,Section 124,Section 110(2),Section 77,Section 79

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 16945/2025 $~ * 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. DLHC010874382025 + W.P.(C) 16945/2025

MOHD KHALID

.....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 issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continued detention of the two gold bars weighing 166 grams warrants interference by th

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 108

All 37 judgments and leading authorities on Section 108 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →