The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the absolute confiscation of a 116-gram gold bar recovered from an international passenger at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, holding that the disputed questions surrounding the Customs adjudication should be raised before the statutory appellate authority.

The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Shail Jain observed that the petitioner approached the High Court after remaining inactive for several years, despite being aware of the seizure since December 2020 and held that the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, coupled with the unexplained delay, weighed against exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court, however, clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s objections concerning the alleged non-service of a show cause notice, waiver of notice and personal hearing, Green Channel violation, confiscation of the gold or the penalties imposed by the Customs authorities.

Buy Now: Customs Duty E-Magazine – August 2026

The petitioner arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on December 6, 2020. Customs officers intercepted him after he had crossed the Green Channel and recovered a yellow metal bar bearing the “Suisse” brand and weighing 116 grams.

The gold bar was detained through a detention receipt issued on the same day.

The Customs Department relied upon a statement recorded from the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act. According to the statement, the petitioner admitted that the gold bar had been given to him by a friend and did not belong to him. It further recorded that he had intentionally attempted to take the gold through the Green Channel without declaring it or paying the applicable customs duty.

The statement also recorded that the petitioner did not require a show cause notice and that the matter could be decided on its merits. It stated that the declaration had been made voluntarily and that its contents had been explained to the petitioner in the vernacular.

The Customs authorities subsequently initiated adjudication proceedings concerning the detained goods.

The Department placed communications and a public notice on record concerning the disposal of detained and seized valuable goods lying in the Customs warehouse and the Disposal (Valuable) Godown at Terminal 3 of the Delhi airport.

The public notice called upon the concerned passengers to approach the Customs authorities within two weeks, failing which the process for disposal of the detained or seized goods would be initiated. The petitioner did not approach the Department pursuant to the notice.

The proceedings ultimately culminated in a common Order-in-Original dated June 7, 2023. The adjudicating authority ordered absolute confiscation of the petitioner’s gold bar under Section 111 of the Customs Act and imposed penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Act.

The petitioner claimed that he was never served with a show cause notice or a notice of personal hearing. He contended that he became aware of the Order-in-Original only when his counsel made an enquiry on September 26, 2025.

He consequently approached the High Court seeking the release of the gold bar and a direction that detention or warehouse charges should not be recovered from him.

The petitioner argued that the detention of the gold could not have continued beyond the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act in the absence of a show cause notice under Section 124.

Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs.

The petitioner also questioned the genuineness and legal effect of the statement recorded on December 6, 2020. He claimed that it was a pre-typed document, was not written in his handwriting and had been signed without its contents being properly explained to him.

According to the petitioner, even if the document was treated as a statement under Section 108, it could not amount to a valid waiver of the mandatory requirements of a show cause notice and personal hearing under Section 124.

He also disputed the Customs authority’s findings concerning the alleged Green Channel violation and his entitlement to import the gold.

The Customs Department opposed the petition, maintaining that the petitioner had voluntarily given the statement and had expressly stated that he did not require a show cause notice.

It submitted that the petitioner failed to respond to subsequent communications and the public notice concerning the seized goods. He also did not take any steps for several years after the gold was recovered.

The Department argued that the Order-in-Original was appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act and that the writ petition should be dismissed because of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and the petitioner’s delay and laches.

The High Court noted that the petitioner’s grievance was no longer confined to the continued detention of the gold. Adjudication proceedings had already concluded with an order directing absolute confiscation and imposing penalties.

The challenge would, therefore, require an examination of the Order-in-Original and the material relied upon by the adjudicating authority.

The Bench observed that the parties disputed the circumstances in which the petitioner’s statement was recorded and signed, the legal effect of the purported waiver of a show cause notice, the communications allegedly issued thereafter and the manner in which the adjudication proceedings were conducted.

According to the Court, these questions should not be examined for the first time in writ jurisdiction when the Customs Act provides a specific appellate remedy against an adjudication order.

Section 128 permits an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against a decision or order passed by a Customs officer lower in rank than a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs.

The Court acknowledged that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. It nevertheless emphasised that exhaustion of an efficacious statutory remedy is a well-recognised principle governing the discretionary exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The case did not present circumstances justifying a departure from that principle, the Bench held.

The High Court separately found that the petition suffered from unexplained delay and laches.

The petitioner was admittedly aware that Customs officers had seized the gold bar on December 6, 2020. The Department subsequently issued a public notice asking the affected passengers to approach it in connection with the detained and seized valuable goods.

Despite this, the petitioner neither approached the Department nor initiated proceedings before any forum between December 2020 and 2025.

The Order-in-Original was passed on June 7, 2023, but it was not challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner approached the High Court only in 2025 and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged period of inaction.

The Bench held that the petitioner’s knowledge of the seizure, failure to act for several years and failure to use the statutory appellate mechanism were sufficient reasons to decline the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The High Court made it clear that it had not ruled upon the substantive legality of the confiscation proceedings.

The Court left open the petitioner’s contentions relating to Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act, the alleged waiver of the show cause notice and personal hearing, the validity of the Section 108 statement, the alleged Green Channel violation and the confiscation and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Unfiled Pre-CIRP Customs Claims Extinguish on Approval of Resolution Plan: Delhi High Court