Court emphasizes significance of contemporaneous records and rejects petitioner’s claims of coercion and non-compliance, ruling disputed facts cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction
In a significant judgment dated September 2, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench) in the case of Mohammad Umar v. Commissioner of Customs dismissed a petition seeking the release of two gold bars weighing 233 grams detained under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had challenged the detention on grounds that statutory safeguards under Sections 110 and 124 of the Act were not complied with, specifically alleging non-issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice and coercion in signing documents.
The petitioner, an Indian citizen arriving from Medina at Indira Gandhi International Airport, was found carrying gold bars which he claimed to have declared at the Red Channel. However, Customs records indicated that he crossed the Green Channel without declaration, leading to detention of the gold bars and recording of his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The petitioner’s own statement admitted to non-declaration and willingness to pay applicable duty and penalties, and also indicated that he waived the requirement for a written Show Cause Notice.
Further, nearly a month later, the petitioner submitted a written request acknowledging his mistake of opting for the Green Channel without declaration, expressed regret, and again waived his right to a written Show Cause Notice and personal hearing, confirming receipt of an oral Show Cause Notice.
The Court carefully analyzed the factual matrix and relied heavily on these contemporaneous records, including the detention receipt signed by the petitioner, his Section 108 statement, and the written request. It held that while statutory compliance under Sections 110(2) and 124 is mandatory, mere signing of pre-printed forms or waivers does not automatically satisfy these requirements. Nonetheless, in the instant case, the petitioner’s own admissions and contemporaneous acknowledgments negated his claims of non-compliance.
The petitioner’s allegations of coercion, false implication, and fabrication of documents were considered disputed factual issues, which the Court ruled are not amenable to adjudication under writ jurisdiction (Article 226 of the Constitution). The Court declined to examine evidence such as CCTV footage or re-assess the validity of documents at this stage, emphasizing that such matters require a thorough evidentiary inquiry before competent authorities, not through a writ petition.
The Court clarified that its dismissal of the petition does not imply final adjudication on confiscation or penalty liability, which remain subject to further proceedings as per law. It also cautioned against mechanical or routine use of pre-printed waivers by Customs authorities, reiterating that statutory safeguards must be observed in spirit and letter.
This judgment reinforces the importance of contemporaneous documentary evidence in Customs matters and underscores the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in resolving disputed factual questions involving statutory procedural compliance.
Bottom Line:
Customs Act, 1962 - Statutory compliance under Sections 110 and 124 - Mere signing of pre-printed forms or waiving written Show Cause Notice does not absolve statutory compliance - Disputed questions of fact regarding seizure, declaration, or coercion cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s):
Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 108, 110(2), 124(a)
Mohammad Umar v. Commissioner of Customs, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971870
