Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Waiver of SCN and Personal Hearing Signed via Pre-Printed Form Not Legally Valid: Delhi HC Orders Return of Gold Kadas and Chains [Read Order]

The Delhi HC held that a waiver of SCN and personal hearing through a pre-printed form is not legally valid and ordered the release of gold kadas and chains detained by customs

Kavi Priya
Waiver of SCN and Personal Hearing Signed via Pre-Printed Form Not Legally Valid: Delhi HC Orders Return of Gold Kadas and Chains [Read Order]
X

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ruled that the waiver of a show cause notice and personal hearing through a standard pre-printed form is not legally valid and ordered the release of two gold kadas and two gold chains detained by customs authorities at IGI Airport. Kartik Sahdev, the petitioner, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the...


In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ruled that the waiver of a show cause notice and personal hearing through a standard pre-printed form is not legally valid and ordered the release of two gold kadas and two gold chains detained by customs authorities at IGI Airport.

Kartik Sahdev, the petitioner, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Original Order dated 16 January 2024 and the Order-in-Appeal dated 1 January 2025.

He and his wife were intercepted by customs officers at Terminal 3 of IGI Airport, New Delhi, upon arrival from Bangkok on 14 October 2023. The officers detained two gold kadas and two gold chains worn by the couple, valued at Rs. 9,67,266.

According to the petitioner, he was not issued a proper show-cause notice. Instead, he was asked to sign a pre-printed form, which customs authorities claimed was a waiver of his right to a show cause notice and personal hearing. Relying on this, the customs department issued the Original Order, giving him the option to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 1,20,000 as fine and Rs. 97,000 as penalty.

The customs department later filed an appeal against this order, arguing that the option to redeem the goods should only be granted when the passenger has truthfully declared the items at the red channel.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this argument and upheld the original order. Even after this, the goods were not released to the petitioner, with the department stating it intended to pursue further review.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case. He relied on the judgment in Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs, where the Delhi High Court held that a waiver under Section 124 of the Customs Act must be conscious and informed.

The division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the detention of personal jewellery as part of bona fide baggage is not justified. It pointed out that no proper show cause notice was issued within the time prescribed under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The court explained that once the option to redeem the goods was offered and accepted, and no further valid legal proceedings were pending, the goods should be released. It also pointed out that the printed waiver form could not be considered a lawful waiver of statutory rights under the Act.

The court held that the petitioner was entitled to have the goods released upon payment of the fine and penalty specified in the Original Order. It directed the customs department to release the goods within four weeks and waived any storage charges. The writ petition was disposed of.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

KARTIK SAHDEV vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1658 , W.P.(C) 3193/2025 , 27 March 2025 , Mr. Ashish Panday , Mr. Shubham Tyagi
KARTIK SAHDEV vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
CITATION :  2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1658Case Number :  W.P.(C) 3193/2025Date of Judgement :  27 March 2025Coram :  JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH & JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTACounsel of Appellant :  Mr. Ashish PandayCounsel Of Respondent :  Mr. Shubham Tyagi
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019