Expiry Of Original 6-Month Period No Ground For Release If Customs Validly Extends It: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 2 September held that expiry of the initial six-month period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 does not by itself entitle a person to release of seized goods where the period has been validly extended and a Show Cause Notice is issued within the extended period.

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed a petition seeking release of nine gold bars and one gold chain detained by Customs authorities at Delhi airport from the petitioner. The judges held:

“The statutory period was extended by the competent authority on 20.08.2025, i.e. before expiry of the initial six-month period. The Show Cause Notice was thereafter issued on 23.02.2026, before expiry of the extended period. The Petition was instituted while the extended period was still running. The Petitioner, therefore, cannot seek release of the goods merely by relying upon expiry of the original six-month period while ignoring the extension granted under the proviso to Section 110(2)”

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking release of the seized goods, contending that the original six-month period under Section 110(2) had expired without issuance of a Show Cause Notice and that the subsequent extension granted by Customs was invalid.

The competent authority had extended the period for issuance of the Show Cause Notice by another six months on 20 August 2025, before expiry of the initial period. The extended period was to expire on 25 February 2026.

Customs subsequently issued the Show Cause Notice on 23 February 2026, before expiry of the extended period.

The Court noted that Section 110(2) provides for release of seized goods where they are not made the subject matter of a notice under Section 124 within six months. Its proviso empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to extend the period by a further period of up to six months, subject to informing the person from whose possession the goods were seized.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, the Bench observed that the consequence under Section 110(2) follows where the notice is not issued within the prescribed period, including a validly extended period.

It, however, found that the facts of the present case were materially different as the extension had been granted before expiry of the initial period and the Show Cause Notice had been issued within the extended period.

The petitioner had also questioned the validity of the extension dated 20 August 2025 on grounds including the sufficiency of the reasons recorded for seeking the extension, alleged non-application of mind and alleged failure to communicate the extension to the petitioner.

The Division Bench, however, declined to adjudicate these “disputed aspects” in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.

For Petitioner: Dr. Ashutosh, Ms. Fatima, Mr. Rohit Swarup, Mr. Dalip Singh, Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh, Mr. Pravej Hasan, Mr. Abhijeet Sagar, Mr. S.Vijaykanth, Advs.

For Respondent: Sh. Atul Tripathi, SSC-CBIC Mr. Akshay Sagar and Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advs.