The Delhi High Court has directed the customs dept to strictly adhere to email notice requirements under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has observed that it is incumbent that service of notices, communications and orders ought to be effected even through email and on the common portal, in addition to the traditional methods as per Section 153 of the Customs Act.
The court stated that it has been repeatedly impressed upon the Customs Department and also directed that show cause notices, correspondence and orders ought to be communicated through email, as observed by this Court in Bonanza Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Anr., 2024: DHC: 9885-DB.
The Petitioner, Muhammad Nazim is a resident of India and had arrived at the IGI Airport, New Delhi on 07th November, 2023 from Saudi Arabia. Two gold bars, weighing 174 grams were seized from the possession of the Petitioner by the Customs Department.
The Petitioner then moved an application on 14th December 2023 for release of the gold bars to the Customs Department. Appraisement was effected and a new DR number was issued by the Customs Department.
The Petitioner contended that no show cause notice was issued in this matter, hence this petition seeking release.
The department submitted that a detailed Order in Original has already been passed in the matter. The same was communicated via speed post to the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner’s case is that he never received it.
“It is expected that the Customs Department would adhere to the said directions, in terms of Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the Petitioner has received the order only today from the ld. Counsel for the Respondent, the Petitioner is given thirty days time to avail of his remedies in accordance with law,” the court disposed of the writ petition.
Case Details
Case Title: Muhammad Nazim Versus The Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3042/2025
Date: 11th March, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Mohammed Ather
Counsel For Respondent: Harpreet Singh
Read More: Service Tax Payable On Activity Of Milk Chilling: CESTAT
