Lack Of Written Customs SCN Doesn't Warrant Release Of Detained Goods Where Oral Proceedings Were Held: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held that the absence of a separate written show cause notice does not, by itself, justify the release of goods detained by Customs. This is particularly so where the Department asserts that oral proceedings were undertaken at the time of interception and remains willing to afford the passenger a personal hearing
The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition seeking release of two gold bars weighing 166 grams, which were detained by Customs authorities at the Delhi airport in December 2024.
Petitioner had arrived from Saudi Arabia, and when intercepted after crossing the Green Channel, gold bars were recovered from his baggage.
Petitioner contended that the continued detention of the gold could not be sustained in the absence of a written show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act within the statutory period contemplated under Section 110(2).
The department, however, submitted that Petitioner had been dealt with under the statutory scheme at the time of interception itself and that an oral show cause notice had been given.
The High Court distinguished the case from its earlier decision in Shubangi Gupta v Commissioner of Customs, where the Revenue had merely relied on a waiver of show cause notice without asserting that an oral show cause notice had actually been issued.
“The factual position before this Court is somewhat different. In the present case, the Respondent has specifically taken the stand that the Petitioner was dealt with through oral proceedings and that he had expressly stated that he did not require a show cause notice or personal hearing. The statement recorded on 10.12.2024 contains the said recital,” the Court noted,
Further, it added, “the Respondent has not sought to rely upon such recital to permanently deny the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. On the contrary, the Respondent has categorically stated before this Court that the Petitioner may appear before the competent authority and that the matter shall be adjudicated after affording him an opportunity of personal hearing.”
In these circumstances, the Court was of the view that the appropriate course would be to permit the statutory adjudication process to be completed rather than to direct release of the goods.
At the same time, the Court cautioned that the Department could not keep the matter pending indefinitely and directed it to adjudicate the matter expeditiously.
For Petitioner: Advocates Ashutosh, Fatima, Rohit Swarup, Dalip Singh, Avinash Kumar Singh, Pravej Hasan, Abhijeet Sagar and S. Vijaykanth.
For Respondent: Senior Standing Counsel for Customs Aakarsh Srivastava, along with Advocates Ashish Bansal, Anand Pandey, Ankit Kumar and Dhananjay Parth.