Legal principle

In proceedings arising under the Customs Act, 1962, where an efficacious statutory remedy such as revision under Section 129DD is available against an Order-in-Appeal, the High Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will ordinarily not entertain the writ petition, particularly when the questions raised pertain to disputed factual and legal compliance with Sections 110(2) and 124 which can be examined by the competent revisional authority. The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar but is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. Exceptions such as challenge to vires, lack of jurisdiction, or clear violation of natural justice must be demonstrated for writ jurisdiction to be exercised. A mere waiver of show cause notice recorded in a statement under Section 108 does not by itself dispense with the statutory requirement of notice under Section 124, and the factual question whether an oral show cause notice was given and whether it complied with the proviso to Section 124 is a matter for the revisional authority to examine.

Court decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, leaving all questions on merits open for consideration by the competent Revisional Authority. The court refrained from expressing any final 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 of show cause notice or personal hearing, the applicability of Section 110(2), compliance with Section 124, or the legality of the absolute confiscation.

Facts

Mohammad Junaid, an Indian national, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Doha on 01.07.2024 by Flight AI-972. He crossed the Green Channel and was intercepted by Customs authorities. A gold bar weighing 117 grams was recovered from his possession. A Detention Receipt No. 4745 dated 01.07.2024 was issued. His statement was recorded on 01.07.2024 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he admitted ownership, intentional non-declaration, awareness of customs duty liability, and stated he did not need a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. The Adjudicating Authority passed Order-in-Original dated 28.05.2025 permitting re-export on payment of duty, redemption fine and penalty. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) 14957/2025, and was directed by the court on 25.09.2025 to pursue departmental appellate proceedings. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) passed Order-in-Appeal dated 21.01.2026, allowing the department's appeal and ordering absolute confiscation of the gold bar. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 27.04.2026 challenging the Order-in-Appeal.

Key provisions

• Section 129DD, Customs Act, 1962 — Revision by Central Government