Mohammad Ali Barazandeh v. The Commissioner of Custom & Ors.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking unconditional release of the Petitioner’s gold chain seized by the Customs Department vide detention receipt dated 30th April, 2022.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is an Iranian national who was travelling from Iran to India on 30th April, 2022. Upon his arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, the Petitioner was intercepted by the Customs Department and the Petitioner’s gold chain was seized. It is stated that the said gold chain was appraised by the Customs Department on 30th May, 2022.

4. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that no show cause notice has been issued till date and no personal hearing has been granted. Thus, the Petitioner’s stand is that he is entitled to release of the gold chain.

5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 23rd September, 2025 the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner had relied upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3489/2024 titled Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja dated 11th September, 2025 (hereinafter “Jatin Ahuja - I”). It is submitted that as per the said judgement where no show cause notice is issued within the period prescribed under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter “the Act”), and the goods have not been provisionally released under Section 110A of the Act, then the same shall be released to the passenger. The relevant portion of the said judgement reads as under:

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.”

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that bearing in mind the fact that there is no show cause notice 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. (hereinafter “Jatin Ahuja - II”), which was passed by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in Jatin Ahuja- I, 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:

7. Thus, where the show cause notice has not been issued within the period of six months, extendable by another six months, and the seized goods have not been provisionally released, the said goods would be liable to be released to the passenger. This position has now been settled by the Supreme Court as discussed above.

8. It is noted that on the last date 23rd September, 2025 in view of the above position Ms. Anushree Narain, ld. SCC had sought time to examine the same and seek instructions whether the show cause notice has been issued in the present case or not.

9. Today, it is submitted by Ms. Narain, ld. SCC that she has obtained instructions and no show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner.

10. The Court has considered the matter. In view of the fact that no show cause notice has been issued within the prescribed period under Section 110 of the Act, the necessary consequence of the same, in light of Jatin Ahuja - I, would be to direct the Petitioner’s gold chain to be released.

11. The Petitioner is a resident of Iran and he is willing to re-export the gold item. Accordingly, let the Customs Department release the gold chain to the Petitioner for re-export subject to payment of warehousing charges as applicable on the date of detention, within a month.