Case Details: Inderpal Singh vs. Commissioner of Customs (2026) 40 Centax 136 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
- Dr Ashutosh & Ms Fatima, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Gibran Naushad, Harsh Singhal & Suraj Shekhar Singh, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed a petition assailing the detention order, whereby goods, including a gold chain and mobile phones, were seized by the department upon arrival in India from abroad. Thereafter, an Order-in-Original was passed ordering confiscation of the said goods, denying free allowance and imposing a penalty, with an option to redeem the gold chain on payment of a fine. The petitioner contended that the gold chain was a personal effect in terms of the Baggage Rules, 2016. It was further submitted that no show-cause notice had been issued to date, and no personal hearing had been granted. The department relied upon a waiver of the oral show cause, which was signed by the petitioner. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that such an oral show cause notice would not be valid in law in view of section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was observed that notice in writing and opportunity of hearing were required before passing any order of confiscation. The High Court further held that the show cause notice in the present case was deemed not to have been issued, and the order passed without issuance of a show cause notice and without a hearing was not sustainable in law. It was held that the action of the department was contrary to law and principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the order was set aside to that extent, and the gold chain was directed to be released on payment of warehousing charges, and the petitioner was permitted to file an appeal.
List of Cases Cited
- Amit Kumar v. Commissioner — 2025 (392) E.L.T. 429 (Del.) = (2025) 28 Centax 134 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 7]
