Court holds that availability of revision under Section 129DD precludes writ petition; issues of show cause notice and procedural compliance to be examined by revisional authority
In a significant ruling on September 2, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain) declined to interfere with the order of absolute confiscation of a 117-gram gold bar seized from an Indian national, Mohammad Junaid, by Customs authorities at Indira Gandhi International Airport. The judgment underscores the principle that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists.
Mohammad Junaid had challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on January 21, 2026, which overturned an earlier order allowing re-export of the gold bar upon payment of redemption fine, penalty, and applicable customs duty, and instead directed absolute confiscation. The petitioner contended that the confiscation violated the mandatory statutory requirement of issuance of a valid show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, and that the principles of natural justice were breached. He argued that the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act, wherein he purportedly waived the need for a show cause notice and personal hearing, could not substitute the statutory notice mandated by law.
The Customs Department defended the confiscation order, asserting that an oral show cause notice was duly given on July 1, 2024, the date the gold was seized, and that the petitioner was granted personal hearing on May 21, 2025. The Department also emphasized the participation of the petitioner’s authorized representative in the adjudication proceedings. They further submitted that the petitioner’s earlier writ petition was disposed of with directions to conclude departmental appellate proceedings, which culminated in the impugned order of absolute confiscation.
The Court analyzed the legal framework, particularly Sections 110(2), 124, and 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. It reiterated the settled principle from Supreme Court precedents that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised where an efficacious statutory remedy is available, barring exceptional circumstances like violation of fundamental rights or jurisdictional errors. The Court distinguished the present facts from prior rulings where the Revenue had not asserted issuance of any show cause notice, clarifying that in the present case, the Department claims an oral show cause notice was given, and personal hearing was granted.
Recognizing the factual disputes raised by the petitioner regarding whether the oral show cause notice was truly given in accordance with statutory requirements, the manner of recording the statement under Section 108, and compliance with timelines under Section 110(2), the Court concluded these issues are better suited for adjudication by the competent Revisional Authority under Section 129DD of the Act. The Court declined to delve into the merits of these factual questions in writ proceedings, stating it was not an appropriate forum to undertake an evidentiary inquiry.
The judgment thus dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, while leaving all substantive questions open for consideration by the Revisional Authority. The Court also clarified that its decision should not be construed as an opinion on the validity of the oral show cause notice, the waiver recorded in the statement, or the legality of the confiscation order.
This ruling reaffirms the principle of judicial restraint in interference with quasi-judicial orders when specific statutory remedies are provided, and emphasizes the need for strict compliance with procedural safeguards in customs confiscation proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Customs Act, 1962 - Availability of statutory remedy under Section 129DD of the Act precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court, unless the case falls under recognized exceptions like violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s):
Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 110(2), 124, 129DD
Mohammad Junaid v. Commissioner of Customs, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971843
