Case Summary: W.P.(C) 3193/2025 — Kartik Sahdev v. Commissioner of Customs

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Kartik Sahdev, arriving from Bangkok at Terminal-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi on 14 October 2023, and his wife were intercepted and found wearing two gold kadas and two gold chains. The items were detained vide Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/14.10.2023/002858. The petitioner alleges that no show cause notice was issued because he signed a pre-printed standard proforma that purportedly waived his right to a show cause notice and hearing.

An Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 16 January 2024 offered the petitioner the option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,20,000 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 97,000; the total appraised value of the seized goods was recorded as Rs. 9,67,266. The Customs Department appealed the OIO contending that the redemption option is available only where a truthful declaration was made at the Red Channel. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the OIO by Order in Appeal (OIA) dated 1 January 2025. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 seeking implementation/release in terms of the orders. The petitioner sought release but the goods were not released on the ground that an appeal/review was likely to be filed by the Customs Department; the respondents indicated an intention to file a review before the Revisional Authority.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether signing a pre-printed standard proforma that purports to waive a show cause notice and personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice and the requirements of Section 124 of the Customs Act.
2. Whether the detained jewellery constitutes bonafide personal baggage exempt from duty under Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, and therefore ought not to have been detained.
3. Whether, given the statutory time limits under Section 110 of the Customs Act (six months with a possible further six-month extension), a show cause notice could still validly be issued in the present case.
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to release of the goods in terms of the OIO (redemption on payment of fine and penalty) despite the Department's intention to appeal or seek review.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner contends that no show cause notice was issued because he had signed a pre-printed standard proforma which purportedly waived his right to receive a show cause notice and to a personal hearing.
• The petitioner implicitly contends that the detained items (two gold kadas and two gold chains) are personal jewellery forming part of bonafide baggage and exempt under Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, 2016.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Customs Department argued that the option to redeem the goods is available only when the traveller has made a truthful declaration at the Red Channel (as stated by the Department in its appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals)).
• On the date of hearing before the High Court, the respondents indicated an intention to file a review before the Revisional Authority and/or to seek further instructions regarding an appeal/review.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified two principal illegalities on a prima facie basis.

1. Waiver and denial of hearing: Relying on Amit Kumar (2025:DHC:751-DB), the court observed that a printed form purporting to record waiver of a show cause notice and personal hearing cannot substitute for a conscious, informed waiver required by Section 124 of the Customs Act. The judgment emphasises that an oral SCN cannot be deemed served by reliance on such a printed waiver; any waiver should be a proper declaration consciously signed and, even then, an opportunity of hearing must be afforded. The court applied this principle to find that the petitioner’s signing of a pre-printed proforma and the absence of a hearing violated natural justice.
2. Detention of jewellery and statutory time limits: The court treated the detained items as personal jewellery forming part of bonafide baggage, citing decisions including Nathan Narayanswamy and Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh, which hold such items exempt under Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, 2016. Further, the court noted the mandatory requirement to issue a show cause notice once goods are detained and the timing constraints under Section 110 of the Customs Act: six months as the prescribed period with a possible further six-month extension by the Department. In this case the court recorded that one year had elapsed, and therefore no valid show cause notice could be issued, rendering the detention impermissible.
3. Relief-oriented analysis: Although the court found procedural illegality and substantive exemption, it also noted that the petitioner had already been offered the option to redeem the goods in the OIO and that he had "fully participated in the proceedings of show cause notice." Balancing these facts, the court directed the practical remedy of release upon compliance with the redemption terms of the OIO.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The petition is disposed of on the terms that the petitioner may pay the redemption fine and penalty as provided in the Order-in-Original, and upon such payment the goods shall be released to him within four weeks; storage charges are waived.

Immediate consequences for the parties:

• The petitioner is permitted to pay the fine and penalty in terms of the OIO and obtain release of the two gold kadas and two gold chains within four weeks.
• Storage charges for the goods are waived by the court.
• All pending applications related to the writ petition, if any, were disposed of.

Broader implications: The court applied existing precedents concerning printed waivers and the exemption of personal jewellery as bonafide baggage. The order effectuates release in the particular facts of this case; the opinion does not purport to lay down a new legal principle beyond the application of the cited authorities.