Top Stories Non-Issuance of Notice u/s 124 of Customs Act: Delhi HC directs Immediate Release of Detained Patek Philippe Watch [Read Order] It was noted that no seizure memo has been prepared and the Customs Authorities have declined to release the item in question on the basis of the detention receipt By Manu Sharma – On November 14, 2024 6:16 pm – 2 mins read In a recent decision, the High Court of Delhi has directed the revenue to immediately release goods detained without issuing a notice as required under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The petitioner claims that her representative had made personal visits to the Customs Department during the months from January, 2024 to March, 2024. Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now However, she had not received any response from the Customs Authorities. Thereafter, on 29.04.2024, the authorised representative of the petitioner sent an e-mail to the Department seeking release of the detained item (Patek Philippe watch). The petitioner did not receive any response to the said e-mail.  The Revenue has filed a counter affidavit confirming that the petitioner was intercepted at the IGI Airport, Delhi when she was walking through the green channel. The petitioner and her baggage were searched and a Patek Philippe watch was recovered from her. It is stated that the petitioner’s voluntary statement was recorded on the very same day – 02.01.2024 – under Section 108 of the Act, and it is claimed that she had stated that she did not need any show cause notice or a personal hearing in the matter. The Revenue accepted that the petitioner’s authorised representative had visited the Customs Officials.

The Revenue state that the petitioner was called upon to submit proof of the mode of payment made for the watch detained and the invoice/bills evidencing the purchase thereof, but the authorised representative had not complied with the said request. Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now Section 110(1) of the Act empowers the Customs Officers to seize such goods which, the proper officer has reason to believe, are liable for confiscation. There is no provision for detaining the goods for an indefinite period. In the present case, it is not contested that the goods in question were in fact seized. However, no seizure memo has been prepared and the Customs Authorities have declined to release the item in question on the basis of the detention receipt. The Bench noted that, “In terms of Section 110(2) of the Act, the seized goods are required to be returned, if a notice under Section 124 of the Act is not issued within the period as prescribed. As noted above, in the present case, it is apparent that no such notice was issued by the Customs Authorities”. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma thus directed to release the seized goods to the petitioner immediately.