The Delhi High Court ruled that the petitioner is ineligible for the release of the gold bar due to their failure to respond to a timely Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, noting that the gold bars were seized on January 21, 2023, and the SCN was served via email on July 4, 2023, within the six-month period stipulated under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act.
The petitioner Elena Shvedova purchased five gold bars weighing 1,075 grams from a bank in Russia. She brought these gold bars to India to have them made into jewelry and then planned to return to her country with the finished products. However, upon arrival in India, the petitioner was intercepted by Customs Officers near the green channel, and the gold bars were seized. The seizure was documented under Detention Receipt No. 61069, dated January 21, 2023. The petitioner alleges that she was coerced into signing pre-written documents in English, a language she does not fully understand. She subsequently returned to Russia and, on February 7, 2023, sent a letter to the Commissioner of Customs detailing her experience and requesting that her gold not be sold.
Detailed discussion on filing of ITR-7 | Join Now
The petitioner claims that no Show Cause Notice (SCN) has been issued to her under Section 124(a) read with Section 110 of the Customs Act, and therefore, the gold should be returned unconditionally. However, in its counter affidavit, the revenue stated that an SCN dated July 3, 2023, was issued by the Competent Authority within the stipulated time and was sent to the petitioner via email on July 4, 2023. The petitioner, however, did not respond to this notice.
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.S. Chadha, argued that no SCN was properly served as per Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. He pointed out that the SCN was sent via speed post through the Ministry of Law & Justice but without providing the petitioner’s complete address, resulting in the notice being returned to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on August 10, 2023. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that she did not receive any email from the address “Pre.ShiftC@gmail.com,” as claimed by the respondents, and that the inbox of her email does not reflect any such communication. Furthermore, Mr. Chadha argued that the email service is not valid under the E-mail Policy of India as passed by the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology.
On the contrary, Ms. Nishtha Mittal, representing the respondent, argued that the SCN was duly served to the petitioner via email and that since the email did not bounce back, there is a presumption of due service.
The court noted that under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, a notice under Clause (a) of Section 124 must be issued within six months of the seizure of goods, failing which the goods should be returned to the person from whom they were seized. The court also clarified that Section 153 of the Customs Act prescribes various methods of service, any one of which may be used.
Detailed discussion on filing of ITR-7 | Join Now
The SCN dated July 3, 2023, was reportedly displayed on the notice board of IGI Airport, Terminal-3, which the court noted was not a valid method of service given that the petitioner is a foreign national and was not residing in India at the time. The SCN was also sent through the Ministry of Law & Justice to the address provided by the petitioner during her statement on January 21, 2023, and based on her passport details. However, it was returned on August 10, 2023, due to incomplete address details. The SCN was then sent to the petitioner’s email address provided during her statement, and it was not disputed that this was the correct email address.
The petitioner attempted to argue that she did not receive the email by submitting a screenshot of her email inbox from her mobile phone. However, the court found this evidence unreliable because the digital record was certified as being from a computer, not a mobile phone, as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
The division bench, comprising Justice Ravinder Dudeja and Justice Yashwant Varma, observed that the gold bars were seized on January 21, 2023, and the SCN was served via email on July 4, 2023, within the six-month period stipulated under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. Consequently, the court concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to the release of the gold bars at this stage and dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the case.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
