NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, directing the Customs Department to return her confiscated luxury watch, citing non-compliance with procedural mandates under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The court reprimanded the Customs Authorities for detaining the item without issuing a mandatory show-cause notice.
The case arose when the petitioner, an OCI cardholder, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport and had her high-value watch confiscated by customs. Despite multiple follow-ups, she was neither informed of the grounds for confiscation nor issued a formal notice, as required under Section 124 of the Act. This provision stipulates that confiscation orders can only be made after providing the owner a notice, a chance to make a representation, and an opportunity to be heard.
A division bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the customs department’s argument that the petitioner had waived her right to a notice. The court emphasised, “The seized goods are required to be returned if a notice under Section 124 of the Act is not issued within the prescribed period. There is no provision for waiver of this notice under the statute.”
The customs department claimed that an oral show-cause notice was issued and alleged that the petitioner had waived her rights to a formal notice or hearing. However, the court found no evidence to support this claim, noting that even the Department’s counter-affidavit failed to mention the issuance of such a notice. Instead, the Customs Authorities argued that a waiver by the petitioner rendered the notice unnecessary.
The court firmly rejected this position, stating, “Absent any such notice, whether in writing or oral, we cannot accept that the provisions of Section 124(a) of the Act are satisfied. Concededly, there is no provision for waiver of the notice as prescribed under the statute.”
The judgment also clarified that while Section 110(1) of the Customs Act empowers officers to seize goods suspected to be liable for confiscation, the law does not permit indefinite detention of such items. The bench noted, “No seizure memo has been prepared, and the customs authorities have declined to release the item based solely on a detention receipt.”
Consequently, the High Court directed the customs department to return the watch to the petitioner immediately, underscoring the failure to adhere to statutory provisions.