HC Emphasizes Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies Under Customs Act, 1962, and Restricts Writ Jurisdiction to Exceptional Circumstances
In a significant ruling dated September 2, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain) refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Mohammad Nawab Khan (through his wife Fareeeda Begum) challenging an Order-in-Original issued by the Commissioner of Customs that confiscated a 117-gram gold bar. The Court underscored the principle that when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists under the Customs Act, 1962, the High Court will ordinarily refrain from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Background and Facts:
Mohammad Nawab Khan was carrying a gold bar weighing 117 grams upon his arrival in India. The Customs Authorities detained the gold bar on January 28, 2024, alleging that it was not declared as required under the law. The Customs Department recorded a statement from the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, during which the petitioner purportedly admitted non-declaration and waived his right to a formal Show Cause Notice and personal hearing.
The adjudicating authority issued an oral Show Cause Notice on January 27, 2024, and subsequently appraised the gold bar on February 2, 2024. Ultimately, on April 15, 2024, the Order-in-Original was passed, ordering absolute confiscation of the gold bar along with waiver of detention charges.
Contentions and Legal Issues:
The petitioner contended that no valid Show Cause Notice was issued in accordance with Section 124 of the Customs Act, and argued that the statement recorded under Section 108 was obtained without informing him of its contents, rendering it invalid. He claimed that the alleged waiver of the Show Cause Notice and personal hearing could not substitute the mandatory procedural safeguards. The petitioner relied on a recent precedent of the Delhi High Court in Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., which emphasized the necessity of proper Show Cause Notices and adherence to natural justice.
The Commissioner of Customs opposed the writ petition on the ground that the Customs Act provides a complete and efficacious statutory mechanism to challenge such orders through appeal and that the petitioner’s allegations of coercion and procedural irregularities raised factual disputes suitable for the appellate authority’s examination.
Court’s Analysis and Rationale:
The Court noted that the petition challenged a final Order-in-Original and not mere apprehension or interim detention, thus making the statutory appellate remedy under the Customs Act available and effective. The Court reaffirmed the well-established legal principle that availability of an alternative statutory remedy is a “rule of self-imposed restraint” and not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. Writ jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and primarily in exceptional circumstances such as violation of natural justice, absence of jurisdiction, or challenge to the validity of legislation.
In the present case, the Court found that the petitioner’s allegations of procedural irregularities and waiver of Show Cause Notice raised contested factual issues requiring a detailed scrutiny of the adjudication record. Such an examination is more appropriately conducted by the statutory appellate authority, which can consider the entire record and evidence.
The Court clarified that mere invocation of breach of natural justice cannot bypass the statutory appeal when disputed questions of fact and law exist. It further observed that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the confiscation, the validity of the statement under Section 108, or the applicability of the waiver.
Directions:
The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the statutory appeal remedy within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal independently and on its merits, including any question of limitation, without being influenced by the observations made by the High Court in its judgment. The Court also directed that any application for condonation of delay would be considered on its own merits.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed with the directive that the petitioner must exhaust the statutory appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. The ruling reaffirms the principle of judicial restraint in writ jurisdiction and emphasizes the primacy of statutory appellate mechanisms in customs adjudication matters.
Bottom Line:
A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an Order-in-Original issued under the Customs Act, 1962 is not maintainable when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances such as violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction exist.
Statutory provision(s):
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 108, Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962
Mohammad Nawab Khan v. Commissioner of Customs, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971848
