Mohammad Uzair Vs Commissioner of Customs

This matter is being taken up today, as 25th November, 2025 was declared a holiday on account of ‘Guru Tegh Bahadur’s Martyrdom Day’ vide Notification No. 35/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC.

¶13

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Mohammad Uzair challenging the detention of one gold chain weighing 58 grams, which was detained by the Customs officials vide detention receipt dated 28th June, 2023, when the Petitioner was travelling from UAE to India.

¶14

It is the case of the Petitioner that he is a resident of Dubai and the seized gold chain is his used personal effect. Photographs have also been placed on record to substantiate the same.

¶15

Vide Order dated 21^st August, 2025, the seized gold chain was

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

W.P.(C) 12667/2025

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:0 1.12.2025 18:10:57

¶20

directed to be produced before the Court. The same has been produced and a perusal of the same would show that the gold chain is clearly an old used gold chain which appears to be a personal effect of the Petitioner. However, since there is no SCN which has been issued in this matter, the dictum in Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024 titled Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja would be squarely applicable. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held as under:

¶21

“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 showcause notice within the statutory period spelt out in Section 110(2) would be contrary to the plain meaning and intendment of the statute.

¶22

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).

¶23

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

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

W.P.(C) 12667/2025

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:0 1.12.2025 18:10:57

¶28

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.

¶29

[...]

¶30

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 showcause notice under Section 124 of the Act, 1962. The two provisions are distinct and they operate in a different field.”

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

W.P.(C) 12667/2025

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:0 1.12.2025 18:10:57

¶35

The above decision is clear to the effect that if no SCN is issued within the time prescribed under Section 110 of the Act, the seized goods are liable to be released. The time prescribed under Section 110 of the Act, is a period of six months and subject to reasons recorded in writing, the same may be extended for a maximum period of six months. In this case, the one-year period itself has elapsed, thus no SCN can be issued at this stage. The continued detention of seized gold chain is, therefore, impermissible and the same are liable to be released to the Petitioner.

¶36

The gold item would be liable to be released unconditionally as it is an old jewellery of the Petitioner. The detained item is directed to be released without any charges. In these facts, no warehousing charges shall be charged in the present case.

¶37

Let the Petitioner appear before the Customs Department on 22nd December, 2025 in person or through an Authorised Representative. Where the Authorised Representative is appearing, the Petitioner shall join the proceedings virtually and a proper email or some other form of communication from the Petitioner shall be sent to the Customs Department verifying the authorisation of the said representative to appear on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶38

Upon the above directed payments being made, the gold items shall be released.

¶39

The Nodal Officer mentioned below shall facilitate the Petitioner’s appearance before the competent authority for compliance with the present order:

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

W.P.(C) 12667/2025

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:0 1.12.2025 18:10:57

¶44

Mr. Mukesh Gulia, Superintendent, Legal Office of Commissioner, Customs IGI Airports, T-3, New Delhi Email id: [email protected] Mob. No.: 9999922479

¶45

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶46

PRATHIBA M. SI�GH JUDGE

¶47

RE�U BHAT�AGAR JUDGE

¶48

�OVEMBER 26, 2025 /kp/hp

¶49

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:0 1.12.2025 18:10:57

¶50

W.P.(C) 12667/2025

¶51

Page 5 of 5

Mohammad Uzair v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Uzair v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jindal Steel Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Delhi Police through Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs Ravi Dutt Hc Ex in Delhi Police

Cheeli J Ratnam Vs Union of India & Ors.

Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Vipin Automobiles Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer & Anr.

Anju Khosla Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 15 1 Delhi & Anr.

Mahendra Pal Sharma Vs Directorate of Education Delh & Anr.

Kamal Kalra & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Kuber Enterprises Vs the Principal Commissioner, Delhi GST

India Steel through Its Proprietor, Anis Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Gurveer Kaur & Anr. Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S Puneet Chemicals Vs Union of India & Anr.

Roovi Vs Commissioner of Customs

Chetan Jain Vs Commissioner of Customs & Ors.