Case Details: Mohamed Shamiuddeen Versus Comm. Of Customs (2025) 30 Centax 59 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Dharmesh Sharma, JJ.
- S/Shri Md. Athar & S. Vijay Kant, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Gibran Naushad, Sr. Standing Counsel with Harsh Singhal, Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an Indian passport holder and permanent resident of Hong Kong, arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from abroad and was intercepted by Customs authorities. Upon inspection, a high-value wristwatch in the petitioner’s possession was detained by the Department and a detention receipt was issued. At the time of detention, the petitioner was made to sign a standard appraisal and assessment form, followed by a printed undertaking in a fixed format that recorded a waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing. Subsequently, the Department contacted the petitioner via email requesting proof of foreign residency, to which the petitioner responded after a time lapse. Despite being in possession of the petitioner’s email address and mobile number, the Department neither issued a formal show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 nor provided an opportunity of personal hearing before continuing with the detention. Aggrieved by the absence of formal proceedings, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court under writ jurisdiction, seeking unconditional release of the detained goods.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the printed waiver relied upon by the Department could not be treated as a valid waiver under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court emphasized that such printed forms, often signed in coercive or unclear circumstances, do not satisfy the requirement of a conscious and informed waiver. It reaffirmed that natural justice mandates issuance of a written show cause notice and an opportunity for representation and hearing before passing any confiscatory action. Since the Department failed to issue a proper show cause notice or provide a hearing, the continued detention of goods was found to be contrary to law. The Court directed the immediate release of the detained goods upon payment of applicable storage charges by the petitioner.
List of Cases Cited
- Amit Kumar v. Commissioner — (2025) 28 Centax 134 (Del.) — Relied on [Paras 7, 9]
