Delhi High Court Refuses Writ Against Gold Confiscation, Cites Disputed Facts And Revision Remedy

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the absolute confiscation by Customs authorities, holding that disputes concerning the alleged oral show-cause notice and waiver of personal hearing involve disputed questions of fact which should be examined by the statutory revisional authority.

The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain observed that although the existence of an alternative remedy does not completely bar the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, the present case involved factual disputes concerning what transpired between the petitioner and Customs officials.

Petitioner had arrived at Delhi airport from Bahrain and crossed the Green Channel, when Customs officials intercepted him and recovered a gold bar of 999 purity bearing foreign markings.

The gold was detained and subsequently absolutely confiscated by the adjudicating authority. A penalty of ₹1.15 lakh was also imposed upon Petitioner under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Petitioner challenged the confiscation primarily on the ground that no written show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act had been issued before the confiscation order.

Customs however relied upon a statement allegedly recorded from Petitioner under Section 108, wherein he stated that he did not require a show-cause notice or personal hearing. The Department also relied upon a communication dated June 7, 2024, submitted through his authorised representative, reiterating that he did not require a show-cause notice or personal hearing.

The authorities further contended that an oral show-cause notice had been issued, in terms of the first proviso to Section 124 of the Act.

Petitioner disputed this and alleged that the document relied upon by Customs was not a valid statement under Section 108 and claimed that documents had been prepared beforehand and that he had been made to sign them without their contents being properly explained to him. He also disputed that the recital regarding not requiring a show-cause notice could amount to a valid request for an oral show-cause notice.

The High Court observed that the Petitioner disputed the character, voluntariness and legal effect of the documents relied upon by Customs which would require examination of the documents, circumstances surrounding the alleged statement dated 02.06.2024, the alleged request concerning the show-cause notice and personal hearing, the alleged oral notice and the subsequent communication dated June 7, 2024.

“These competing assertions assume significance because the relief sought by the Petitioner would require this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to examine the factual circumstances in which the documents were executed and to determine the effect thereof,” it said.

The Court also pointed that Petitioner had already availed the statutory appellate remedy against the original confiscation order and the Customs Act provides a further remedy of revision before the Central Government under Section 129DD.

As such, the Court dismissed the petition, with liberty to avail the statutory remedy.

For Petitioner: Advocates Ashutosh, Fatima, Rohit Swarup, Dalip Singh, Avinash Kumar Singh, Pravej Hasan, Abhijeet Sagar,  S.Vijaykanth

For Respondent: Advocates Anushree Narain, SSC with Apurv Yadav and Mr. Naman Choula