Court Declines to Intervene in Customs Case Involving Oral Show Cause Notice, Directs Petitioner to Pursue Revision under Customs Act
In a significant ruling delivered on September 2, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain) dismissed a writ petition filed by Fahim Ahmad challenging the confiscation of a gold bar weighing 116 grams and imposition of penalty by the Customs authorities under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment highlights the procedural safeguards under the Act, the importance of statutory remedies, and the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in disputed factual matters.
The petitioner, Fahim Ahmad, an Indian national returning from Bahrain, was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, on June 2, 2024, after crossing the Green Channel. Customs officials recovered a gold bar of 999 purity, marked "NAIF," from his possession. The gold bar was seized, and a statement was recorded purportedly under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The petitioner initially denied ownership but allegedly waived the requirement of a written Show Cause Notice and personal hearing by orally agreeing not to require the same.
The petitioner challenged the confiscation order dated August 20, 2024, contending that no written Show Cause Notice was issued as mandated under Section 124 of the Customs Act, rendering the confiscation and penalty invalid. The Customs authorities countered that an oral Show Cause Notice was issued as per the first proviso to Section 124, following the petitioner’s purported waiver, and that the petitioner’s statement was voluntary.
After the petitioner’s appeal against the original order was dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on August 27, 2025, he approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the appellate order and release of the gold bar. The Court, however, noted that disputed questions of fact concerning the voluntariness of the petitioner’s statement, validity of the alleged oral Show Cause Notice, and procedural compliance could not be conclusively adjudicated in writ proceedings.
Emphasizing the availability of a statutory remedy, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, which provides for Central Government revision against appellate orders relating to baggage goods. The Court acknowledged that while writ jurisdiction is not completely barred by alternative remedies, it should be exercised cautiously, especially where material facts are disputed.
The Court also took note of the willingness expressed by the Customs Department to grant the petitioner a personal hearing and reconsider the matter in accordance with law within a stipulated timeframe. The judgment refrained from commenting on the merits of the confiscation, ownership of the gold, or validity of the statements recorded during investigation.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to file a revision application under Section 129DD within four weeks, directing the revisional authority to consider it on merits without rejecting it on grounds of earlier writ proceedings. The judgment underscores the procedural rigor required under the Customs Act and the importance of adhering to statutory remedies for dispute resolution.
Bottom Line:
Customs Act, 1962 - Confiscation of gold bar and penalty imposed without a written Show Cause Notice under Section 124 - Dispute over validity of oral Show Cause Notice and voluntariness of statements made by the Petitioner - Disputed factual issues not suitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction - Availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 129DD of the Act emphasized.
Statutory provision(s):
Customs Act, 1962 Sections 108, 110, 112, 114, 124, 128, 129A, 129DD; Constitution of India Article 226
Fahim Ahmad v. Commissioner of Customs, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971847
