Legal principle

Violation of natural justice is not an automatic exception to the rule of alternative remedy: where the adjudicating authority possesses jurisdiction and the complaint concerns only the manner of its exercise, the High Court will ordinarily relegate the party to the Section 128 appeal, particularly given delay and the Section 153(3) deeming fiction of service.

Court decision

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 128 and had approached the Court after substantial delay without any exceptional circumstance warranting Article 226 interference; it expressly declined to examine the merits of the confiscation, the penalty, the evidentiary value of the 17.02.2024 statement, or the legal effect of the 22.04.2024 communication, leaving these to the appellate forum.

Facts

Mohd Arif, an Indian national, arrived at IGI Airport Terminal-3 from Riyadh on 17.02.2024 and, having opted for the Green Channel, was intercepted and found with two gold bars of purity 998 weighing 233 grams, valued at Rs.13,07,412, which were detained. He tendered a statement under Section 108 the same day admitting non-declaration and stating he did not require a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing, and on 22.04.2024 submitted a written request seeking release and recording that an oral Show Cause Notice had been received while he did not want a written one or a personal hearing. The Joint Commissioner, by OIO dated 14.06.2024, absolutely confiscated the gold under Sections 111(d), 111(j), 111(l) and 111(m), declined redemption under Section 125, and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,30,000 under Section 112. The Department dispatched the OIO by Speed Post on 21.06.2024, while the Petitioner claimed he obtained a certified copy only on 19.02.2026 and filed this writ petition in 2026.

Key provisions

• Section 128, Customs Act, 1962 — Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)