Gulfam v. Commissioner of Customs

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Mr. Gulfam under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of the gold bar weighing 117 grams (hereinafter, ‘gold bar’) which was detained by the Customs Department.

3. A brief background of the Petitioner’s case is that the Petitioner was working in Saudi Arabia. He arrived in India on 5th January, 2023. Upon his arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport New Delhi, the gold bar was seized by the Customs Department vide detention receipt dated 5th January,

2023.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that after the detention receipt was issued, no Show Cause Notice has been issued to the Petitioner, and no personal hearing has been granted. Thus, the Petitioner is seeking release of the gold bar as continued detention of the same would be contrary to law, in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3489/2024 titled Union of India and Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja dated 11th September, 2025. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

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.”

5. On behalf of the Respondent, Ms. Narain, ld. SSC has tendered the statement of the Petitioner, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which had been recorded upon Petitioner’s arrival in India. The same is taken on record. The statement of the Petitioner reads as under “On being asked I, Gulfam (D.O.B.-02.01.2000) state that I have appeared before Air Customs Superintendent on 05.01.2023 to tender my statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 In respect of above mentioned items recovered from my possession. On being asked, I state that I was intercepted by the Customs officer after I had crossed the Green Channel and the above said items were recovered during the X-Ray and DFMD. On being asked, I state that aforesaid items does not belongs to me as I have not purchased the said goods mentioned in the table above. that I admit my omission and commission on my part; that I am well aware of the fact that there is Customs duty on import of above Goods; that I will be agreeing with the description, quantity and value to be assessed by the department, and I am ready to pay the Customs duty along with fine and penalty as applicable. I also do not need any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing in the matter. I have tendered my statement true and correct and understood the same in vernacular. I have tendered the above statement without any duress, pressure or threat.”

6. Ld. SSC on behalf of the Respondent submits that the Petitioner has clearly stated that the gold bar does not belong to him, and that he did not purchase the gold bar.

7. On the strength of the above statement, it is argued that the gold bar is liable for confiscation, unless the Petitioner shows any documents to support the possession of the gold bar and ownership of the same.

8. Ld. SSC also submits that the Petitioner may appear before the Customs Department, and after considering the matter a proper order shall be passed.

9. It is further submitted that the gold bar consists of foreign marking, and if the Petitioner states that the same does not belong to him, release of the gold bar to the Petitioner would be contrary to law.

10. Statements under Section 108 would not be admissible in evidence but the said statement at least reveals that a factual inquiry would be required to be undertaken in respect of the contents of the statement as also if the gold bar bears foreign origin markings. These facts cannot be gone into in the present writ petition. Under these circumstances, let the Petitioner appear before the Customs Department on 22nd December, 2025 either physically or through his Authorised Representative with a proper authorisation.

11. In case, the Petitioner is not physically appearing, he shall join the proceedings virtually. After verifying his credentials and affording a hearing the Customs Department shall pass an order in accordance with law.