The Delhi High court has directed the customs department to return Republic of Vanuatu citizen’s luxury watch seized without notice under section 124 of the Customs Act.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has observed that in terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, the seized goods are required to be returned, if a notice under Section 124 of the Act is not issued within the period as prescribed. In the present case, no notice was issued by the Customs Authorities.
Table of Contents
Background – luxury watch
The petitioner/assessee claimed that she is a citizen of the Republic of Vanuatu. However, the detention receipt dated 02.01.2024 notes her nationality as ‘Singapore’. The petitioner holds an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card.
She states that she had arrived at Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport, Delhi on 02.01.2024 along with her husband and her child. On arrival, she was intercepted by the Customs Officers.
At the time, she was wearing a watch of a well-known luxury brand, ‘Patek Philippe’. Although the watch is a personal effect, the same was detained by the Customs Authorities and a detention receipt dated 02.01.2024 was issued by the Customs officials.
The petitioner stated she does not know about the whereabouts of the detained item and no show cause notice has since been issued to her for any further action under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner has also not received any communication from the Customs Authorities informing her of further proposed action in respect of the detained item.
The petitioner claims that her representative had made personal visits to the Customs Department during the months from January, 2024 to March, 2024. However, she had not received any response from the Customs Authorities.
The authorized representative of the petitioner sent an e-mail to the Department seeking release of the detained item (Patek Philippe watch). The petitioner did not receive any response to the said e-mail.
Dept. Arguments
The Department admitted that the watch in question had been detained by the Custom Authorities on 02.01.2024. A show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act was not issued to the petitioner. Although it is claimed that the petitioner was called upon to furnish the evidence of purchase of the detained item and the remittance made, it is admitted that no such written communication was served on the petitioner.
The department contended that it is not necessary that a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act be issued in writing and the said notice can also be issued orally.
The department argued that an oral show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act was issued. Since the petitioner had waived the right to make any representation under Section 124(b), the requirements of Section 124 were complied with and the Customs Authorities are now required to pass an order.
Relevant Provisions
Section 110(1) of the Customs Act empowers the Customs Officers to seize such goods which, the proper officer has reason to belief, are liable for confiscation. There is no provision for detaining the goods for an indefinite period.
In the present case, it is not contested that the goods in question were in fact seized. However, no seizure memo has been prepared and the Customs Authorities have declined to release the item in question on the basis of the detention receipt.
Conclusion – luxury watch
The court held that the item seized by the Revenue is required to be returned forthwith as the provisions of Section 124 of the Act have not been complied with.
The court allowed the petition and directed the department to release the watch to the petitioner.
Case Details
Case Title: Ms Shubhangi Gupta Versus Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 10772/2024
Date: 04.11.2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Amit Chadha
Counsel For Respondent: Shubham Tyagi
