Avazbek Musaev v. Commissioner of Customs

order:

Mr. Mukesh Gulia, Superintendent, Legal, Customs IGI Airports, T-3, New Delhi Email id: igilegaldelhi@gmail.com

¶11The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

SHAIL JAIN JUDGE NOVEMBER 10, 2025/pd/ss

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 10th November, 2025 + AVAZBEK MUSAEV .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Richa Kumari & Mr. Pawan, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vishal Chadha, SSC CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner- Avazbek Musaev, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention of one gold bar weighing 50 grams (hereinafter, 'the detained article') which was detained vide detention receipt dated 13th July, 2024 when he was travelling from Uzbekistan to India. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a citizen of Uzbekistan and had travelled to India on 13th July, 2024. Upon his arrival at the IGI Airport, the detained article was seized from his possession. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no show cause notice (hereinafter, 'SCN') has been issued to the Petitioner with respect to the detention. Hence, the detained articles shall be released. 5. According to the ld. Counsel for the Respondent, the SCN was orally communicated to the Petitioner. It is further submitted by ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner is a foreign national and he should pay the redemption fine and penalty as well, since the detained article would not be covered by the Baggage Rules, 2016. 6. The Court has considered the matter. The seizure in this case would be a seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the issuance of SCN is mandatory failing which, in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court titled Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja in Civil Appeal No.3489/2024 dated 11th September, 2025, the detained article is liable to be released. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: "17. It is difficult for us also to subscribe to the views expressed by the Bombay High Court in Jayant Hansraj Shah's case (supra). We are of the view that the only power that has been conferred upon the Revenue to extend the time period is in accordance with the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act, 1962. The Delhi High Court is right in saying that any effort to say that the release under Section 110A of the Act, 1962 would extinguish the operation of the consequence of not issuing show-cause notice within the statutory period spelt out in Section 110(2) would be contrary to the plain meaning and intendment of the statute. 18. The Delhi High Court has done well to explain that this is so because Section 110A, is by way of an interim 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) o