Ameer Ahmad v. The Commissioner of Custom & Ors.

1. The hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This is a petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the continued detention of two gold bars, collectively weighing approximately 200 grams which had been seized from the Petitioner by the Customs Department.

3. The seizure of the said gold bars had taken place in 2022, however, till date no Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) has been issued and no personal hearing has also been granted to the Petitioner.

4. The Petitioner seeks release of the seized gold bars in terms of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court titled Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja in Civil Appeal No.3489/2024 dated 11th September, 2025. As per the said judgement where no SCN is issued within the period of six months, extendible by further six months, and the goods have not been provisionally released under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 then the same shall be released to the passenger. The relevant portion of the said judgement reads as under:

of the period so specified. The proviso therefore contemplates that the period of six months mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 110 of the said Act can be extended by the higher authority for a further period not exceeding six months, for reasons to be recorded in writing. The proviso also requires the higher authority to inform this to the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period of six months mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 110. We find that in respect of the seized car, there is neither any notice under clause (a) of section 124 issued to the respondent within six months of the seizure nor the period of six months ever came to be extended for a further period of six months. In the absence of there being any notice as required by the first proviso even within the extended period upto one year, the consequence that ought to follow is release of the seized car. [...]

24. The appeals before us are all anterior in time to the coming into force of the second proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act, 1962. Although, it is not necessary for us to say anything further, yet we may clarify that the time period to issue notice under Clause (a) of Section 124 is prescribed only in sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act, 1962. This time period has nothing to do ultimately with the issuance of show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Act, 1962. The two provisions are distinct and they operate in a different field.”

5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that bearing in mind the fact that there is no SCN issued within the period prescribed in law, in terms of the judgment in W.P. (C) 2952/2012 titled Jatin Ahuja v. Union of India & Ors., which was passed by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja (Supra), the Petitioner is entitled to unconditional release of the goods. The relevant portion of the said judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court reads as under:

6. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that no order has been passed in this matter. Though, there is a pre-printed waiver of the SCN and the personal hearing, which was signed by the Petitioner.

7. Heard. The question that has arisen after the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja (Supra) would be whether the release of the goods is liable to be given to the Petitioner without payment of applicable Customs Duty or not, at the time of release of the goods.

8. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties.

9. Ms. Suhani Mathur, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent- Department submits that the Petitioner had given a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962,wherein it was stated that the gold bars do not belong to him. The said statement reads as under: “On being asked I, Ameer Ahmad (D.O.B.-01.01.1992) state that I have appeared before Air Customs Superintendent on 06.05.2022 to tender my statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of above mentioned item recovered from my possession. On being asked, I state that I was intercepted by a Customs Officer after I had crossed the Green Channel and the above said item was recovered. I am well aware of the fact that there is Customs duty on import of gold in India; that I intentionally did not declare the said recovered items; on being asked, I state that the above recovered items does belong to me; that 02 Gold Bar total weighing 233 gms does not belong to me; that I admit omission and commission on my part. I stated that above two gold bars were given to me by one person named Mr. Khalid Hajiji Hundi, having contact number

0539469220. I state that this gold was to be delivered in Moradabad to brother of Mr. Khalid Hajiji Hundi. I state that I do not have contact number or address of brother of Mr. Khalid Hajiji Hundi. I state that I was given free air ticket for coming to India in lieu of bringing these gold bars. I will be agreeing with the description, quantity and value assessed by the department. I don’t want any Show Cause Notice in this matter and this matter may be decided without any personal hearing. I have tendered my true and correct statement; I have read and understood the same in vernacular. I have tendered the above statement without any duress, pressure or threat.”

10. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, to argue that the goods have to be returned to the persons from whose possession they were seized. Moreover, insofar as the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is concerned, the same cannot be read unequivocally in evidence in such a manner.