Sandeep Yadav v. The Commissioner of Customs

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This matter is being taken up today, as 25th November, 2025 was declared a holiday on account of ‘Guru Tegh Bahadur’s Martyrdom Day’ vide Notification No. 35/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC.

3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of the gold chain of the Petitioner, weighing 152 grams seized by the Customs Department vide detention receipt bearing no. DR/INDEL4/17-01-2024/003552 dated 17th January 2024.

4. The Petitioner arrived on 17''' January, 2024 at the IGI Airport, New Delhi and one gold chain which the Petitioner is stated to have been wearing was detained by the Customs Department. The detention receipt was issued to the Petitioner on the same date. However, no Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, 'SCN') has been issued till date and the Petitioner prays for release of the gold chain.

5. Ms. Simran Khorana, ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the statement of the Petitioner was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same has not been disclosed in the present petition. In addition, she submits that on 3rd June, 2025, the Petitioner was called for appraisement of the gold chain.

6. On 2nd September, 2025, the Court had directed that the detained items be produced before the Court. The same has been produced before the Court today and a perusal of the same would reveal that it is not a used personal effect and is a brand new gold chain. However, since there is no SCN which has been issued in this matter, the dictum in Civil Appeal NO. 3489/2024 titled Union of India &Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja would be squarely applicable. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held as under:

order, enabling release of goods like fast moving or perishable etc. The existence of such power does not, in any way, impede or limit the operation of the mandatory provision of Section 110(2).

19. In the case in hand, indisputably the car was seized under sub-section (1) and furthermore no notice in respect of the goods seized was given under clause (a) of section 124 of the said Act within six months of the seizure. The consequence, therefore, in such a case is that the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. The first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 110 of the said Act, however, provides that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the six months' period by a period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry 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.”

7. The above decision is clear to the effect that if no SCN is issued within the time prescribed under Section 110 of the Act, the seized goods are liable to be released. The time prescribed under Section 110 of the Act, is a period of six months and subject to reasons recorded in writing, the same may be extended for a maximum period of six months. In this case, the one year period itself has elapsed, thus no SCN can be issued at this stage. The continued detention of seized gold chain is, therefore, impermissible and the same are liable to be released to the Petitioner.

8. Accordingly, considering the above decision as also the facts of the case, it is directed that the Customs Department shall release the seized gold chain to the Petitioner on the following terms: i. The applicable customs duty shall be paid by the Petitioner; ii. The warehousing charges shall be collected based on the charges applicable on the date of detention.

9. Let the Petitioner appear before the Customs Department on 22nd December, 2025 in person or through an Authorised Representative. Where the Authorised Representative is appearing, the Petitioner shall join the proceedings virtually and a proper email or some other form of communication from the Petitioner shall be sent to the Customs Department verifying the authorisation of the said representative to appear on behalf of the Petitioner.

10. Upon the above directed payments being made, the gold items shall be released.

11. The Nodal Officer mentioned below shall facilitate the Petitioner’s appearance before the competent authority for compliance with the present order: Mr. Mukesh Gulia, Superintendent, Legal Office of Commissioner, Customs IGI Airports, T-3, New Delhi Email id: igilegaldelhi@gmail.com