Release of Detained Gold Chain: Delhi HC Slams Customs’ Practice of Oral SCNs, Printed Waivers

The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to release a gold chain detained from an international passenger at Indira Gandhi International Airport, holding that the continued detention without issuance of a valid show cause notice (SCN) and without affording a personal hearing was contrary to law. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has observed that once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a SCN and afford a hearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed under Section 110 of The Customs Act, 1962, is a period of six months and subject to complying with the formalities, a further extension for a period of six months can be taken by the Customs Department for issuing the SCN. The department has noted that the period of one year itself has elapsed, thus no SCN can be issued. The detention is therefore impermissible and the detained articles of the Petitioner are directed to be released to the Petitioner. The case arose from a writ petition filed by an Indian passport holder whose gold chain, weighing about 49 grams, was detained by Customs officials on 18 June 2024 upon his arrival at Terminal-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi. Despite the passage of more than a year since the detention, no written SCN under the Customs Act, 1962 was issued to the passenger. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking release of the detained jewellery, contending that the absence of an SCN and denial of personal hearing rendered the detention illegal. During the proceedings, the Court directed the Customs Department to produce the seized gold chain before it. The chain was produced in a sealed box, with Customs submitting that it weighed 46 grams. The petitioner’s counsel argued that no personal hearing had ever been granted, while the Department claimed that the petitioner had waived the SCN and personal hearing and that an oral SCN had been conveyed through the petitioner’s special power of attorney. Rejecting the Department’s stand, the Division Bench relied heavily on its earlier rulings which had categorically held that printed or standard-format waivers of SCN and personal hearing do not meet the statutory requirements of Section 124 of the Customs Act. The Court reiterated that if an oral SCN is to be issued, it must be at the conscious request of the person concerned and cannot be presumed from ambiguous or pre-filled undertakings. Even in cases of oral SCN, the right to a reasonable opportunity of hearing cannot be waived through such printed forms. The Bench also referred to its previous directions cautioning Customs authorities against making travellers sign incomprehensible or coercive waiver forms at airports, noting that such practices “shock the conscience of the Court” and undermine the fundamental requirement that no person should be condemned unheard. The Court emphasised that natural justice is not a mere formality but must be followed in letter and spirit in all cases of confiscation or detention. Importantly, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, which clarified that if a show cause notice under Section 124 is not issued within the statutory period prescribed under Section 110 of the Customs Act, the inevitable consequence is the release of the seized goods. In the present case, the Court noted that even the maximum permissible period of one year—six months plus a possible six-month extension—had elapsed without any valid SCN being issued, making the continued detention impermissible in law. In light of these findings, the Court directed the Customs Department to release the gold chain to the petitioner, subject to payment of applicable customs duty and warehousing charges as on the date of detention. The petitioner has been directed to appear before the Customs authorities, either personally or through an authorised representative, for completion of the necessary formalities, with virtual verification of identity if required. The Court clarified that if the Customs Department still wishes to initiate proceedings under Section 124 of the Customs Act, it may do so strictly in accordance with law and only if such action is legally permissible at this stage. The judgment once again sends a strong message to enforcement authorities that procedural safeguards and statutory timelines cannot be bypassed, even in cases involving airport interceptions and passenger baggage checks. Case Details Case Title: Nand Kishor Sharma Vs Commissioner Of Customs Case No.: W.P.(C) 18552/2025 Date: 20.12.2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Pramod Kant Saxena Counsel For Respondent: Aakarsh Srivastava Click Here To Read Order Read More: Release of Seized Gold Kada For Not Issuing SCN Within Statutory Period: Delhi High Court

Release of Detained Gold Chain: Delhi HC Slams Customs’ Practice of Oral SCNs, Printed Waivers

Membership Required

Latest articles

EDCT Machine Rentals Attract VAT as ‘Transfer of Right to Use Goods’: Karnataka High Court

SHIS Benefit Can’t Be Denied by Treating Capital Goods as Mere Parts; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 1.30 Crore Customs Demand

No Social Welfare Surcharge Payable Where Basic Customs Duty Is Fully Exempt Under MEIS/SEIS Schemes: CESTAT

Registry Can’t Decide Complex Legal Issues: GSTAT Refers Appeal Over Pre-Deposit Linked to Amalgamated Entity

More like this

EDCT Machine Rentals Attract VAT as ‘Transfer of Right to Use Goods’: Karnataka High Court

SHIS Benefit Can’t Be Denied by Treating Capital Goods as Mere Parts; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 1.30 Crore Customs Demand

No Social Welfare Surcharge Payable Where Basic Customs Duty Is Fully Exempt Under MEIS/SEIS Schemes: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories