Ravi Kumar vs. The Commissioner Of Customs
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Ravi Kumar, arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from Dubai on August 31, 2023. Customs officials detained two gold chains weighing 150 grams, issuing a Detention Receipt. Despite the detention occurring in August 2023, no Show Cause Notice (SCN) had been issued by the Respondent, the Commissioner of Customs, as of July 4, 2025. The Petitioner contended that the continued detention was illegal due to the non-issuance of the SCN within the prescribed time limits. The amount in dispute is the value of the two gold chains. The procedural history involves the initial detention and the subsequent filing of this writ petition challenging the continued detention.
Held
The Court held that the continued detention of the gold chains by the Customs Department was illegal and impermissible. The Court's reasoning was based on the admitted fact that no Show Cause Notice (SCN) had been issued to the Petitioner within the time frame stipulated by Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. This section mandates the issuance of an SCN within six months of seizure, with a possible extension of another six months. The Court noted that the one-year period had elapsed without an SCN. Relying on its previous judgment in Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs, the Court reiterated that detention of goods is impermissible if the SCN is not issued within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Court quashed the detention of the gold chains and directed their release in favour of the Petitioner within four weeks. The Court also waived off any warehousing charges, considering the nature and duration of the detention. The Customs Department was given the liberty to appraise the goods if they wished.
Key Issues
1. Whether the continued detention of the gold chains is illegal and impermissible under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the non-issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) within the prescribed time period? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that the continued detention of the gold chains is illegal because no SCN has been issued within the statutory time limit of six months, which can be extended by another six months under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. They relied on the settled position of law and the High Court's own previous decisions, specifically citing the case of Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs, which held that detention is impermissible if the SCN is not issued within the prescribed period of one year. Respondent's arguments: The Respondent, represented by the Standing Counsel, accepted notice and submitted, on instructions, that no SCN had been issued to the Petitioner within the stipulated time period of six months of the seizure of goods. No specific arguments were recorded for the Respondent regarding the legality of the detention beyond this admission.
Sections Cited
Section 110
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 04.07.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the continued detention of two gold chains totally weighing 150 grams.
The brief background of this case is that the Petitioner had arrived at Terminal 3 of IGI Airport in New Delhi from Dubai on 31st August, 2023. Upon his arrival the officials from Respondent - Customs Department had intercepted the Petitioner and seized/detained the said gold chains vide Detention Receipt bearing reference no. DR/INDEL4/31-08-2023/002563 dated 31st August, 2023. Despite the detention having taken place on in the month of August, 2023, till date, no Show Cause Notice (hereinafter ‘SCN’) has been issued. It is the settled position of law that under Sections 110 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter ‘CGST Act’), the SCN has to be issued within a period of six months or within the extended period of six This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 11:46:37 months after intimating the Petitioner. Neither conditions have been complied with in this particular case.
This Court in a number of cases including W.P.(C) 2760/2025 titled ‘Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs’ has held that detention of goods is impermissible if the SCN has not been issued within the prescribed period of 1 year. The relevant portion of the decision dated 19th March, 2025 in Mohammad Arham (Supra) is extracted below:
“5. Issue notice. Mr. Harpreet Singh, ld. Senior Standing Counsel for Respondent accepts notice. He submits, on instructions, that admittedly, no show cause notice has been issued upon the Petitioner within the stipulated time period of six months of seizure of goods. Moreover, there has been no appraisement of the goods either.
Once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a show cause notice and afford a hearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed under Section 110 of The Customs Act, 1962, is a period of six months and subject to complying with the formalities, a further extension for a period of six months can be taken by the Department for issuing the show cause notice. In this case, the one year period itself has elapsed, thus no show cause notice can be issued. The detention is therefore impermissible.
Accordingly, let the goods be appraised by the Respondent department on their own and the same be released, subject to verification, within four weeks to the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner has now attained majority, the appraisement shall be done either in the presence of the Petitioner or an Authorized Representative.
The storage/warehouse charges are waived off in this case.”
Considering that no SCN has been issued in the present case, the continued detention of the subject goods would be illegal. Accordingly, the detention of the said goods is quashed. The two gold chains are directed to be This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 11:46:37 released in favour of the Petitioner within a period of four weeks.
For the said purpose, an Authorized Representative of the Petitioner shall appear before the Customs Authorities on 28th July, 2025. Since these are only two gold chains which have been held up for two years, no warehousing charges shall be payable in this case.
If the Customs Department wishes to appraise the same, they may do so.
Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. JULY 4, 2025 Rahul/Ar. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 11:46:37
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.