S.110 Customs Act | SCN Cannot Be Issued After One Year, Detention Of Goods Impermissible: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that detention of goods by the Customs Department cannot continue beyond a period of one year, if a show cause notice was not issued to the assessee within such period.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 which prescribes a period of six months. Further, subject to complying with...
The Delhi High Court has held that detention of goods by the Customs Department cannot continue beyond a period of one year, if a show cause notice was not issued to the assessee within such period.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 which prescribes a period of six months. Further, subject to complying with certain formalities, a further extension for a period of six months for the Department to issue a show cause notice can be given in terms of Section 110(5).
“In this case, the one year period itself has elapsed, thus no show cause notice can be issued. The detention is therefore impermissible,” it observed.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a (then) minor, who was intercepted by the Customs department at the Delhi airport and two yellow bangles weighing 50 grams were recovered from him.
Petitioner alleged no show cause notice has been issued and more than one year has passed.
The Revenue admitted that no SCN was issued following which, the Court directed release of goods and waived warehouse charges.
It observed, “Once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a show cause notice and afford a hearing to the Petitioner.”
Appearance: Mr. Ashish Panday, Mr. Ajay Singh, Mr. Akshat Raghuvanshi, Ms. Kiran Pandey and Mr. Anshuman Gupta, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms. Suhani Mathur & Mr. Jai Ahuja, Advocates for Respondent
Case title: Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 377
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2760/2025
