Legal principle

The High Court will not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to adjudicate on disputed questions of fact and law concerning the validity and effect of a purported oral Show Cause Notice and alleged waiver of procedural safeguards under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, when an efficacious statutory remedy of revision under Section 129DD is available against an Order-in-Appeal in matters concerning goods imported as baggage. The principles of natural justice and statutory requirements under Sections 110 and 124, including the effect of an alleged oral Show Cause Notice under the first proviso to Section 124 and the judgment in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, are matters to be examined by the competent revisional authority in the statutory proceedings, where all contentions, including voluntariness of waiver and compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards, are left open for adjudication.

Court decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition W.P.(C) 17561/2025, declining to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.08.2025 within four weeks. The Court directed the Revisional Authority to consider the revision in accordance with law and not reject it on the ground that the petitioner had approached the High Court. The dismissal was expressly stated to be without any expression of opinion on the merits of the petitioner's challenge or any rival contentions, leaving all questions open for consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioner, an Indian national, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Bahrain on 02.06.2024. Upon interception by Customs authorities after crossing the Green Channel, one gold bar weighing 116 grams of 999 purity was recovered from him. The gold bar was detained vide Detention Receipt No. 4546 dated 02.06.2024. A statement was recorded purportedly under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, on 02.06.2024, wherein the petitioner is stated to have disowned the gold bar and indicated that he did not require issuance of a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. The gold bar was appraised on 07.06.2024 in the petitioner's presence. The respondent relies upon a letter dated 07.06.2024 submitted through the petitioner's Authorised Representative, reiterating that the petitioner did not desire issuance of a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. The adjudicating authority passed Order-in-Original dated 20.08.2024, absolutely confiscating the gold bar and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,15,000/- under Sections 112 and 114 of the Act. The petitioner initially challenged this order in W.P.(C) 6696/2025. The High Court permitted the petitioner to avail statutory appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Act. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the appeal vide Order-in-Appeal dated 27.08.2025. The petitioner then filed the present petition W.P.(C) 17561/2025 challenging the Order-in-Appeal.

Key provisions

• Section 124, Customs Act, 1962 — Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of goods etc
• Section 129DD, Customs Act, 1962 — Revision by Central Government