An individual, Laxmi Chauhan’s gold chain and bangles were confiscated at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a pre-filled waiver of the right to a show-cause notice is not legally valid and cannot be used by the Customs Department to bypass the procedure required under law.
Hence, the division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered the release of seized jewelry upon payment, despite an earlier confiscation order by Customs authorities.
The petitioner, Laxmi Chauhan, approached the court after her jewelry, comprising a gold chain and two gold bangles (weighing around 200 grams) were detained on 2 May 2023, by Customs officials at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.
Later, the department directed the confiscation of the jewelry and imposed Rs.1,15,000, relying on a waiver form signed by the petitioner. According to the officials, the woman gave up her right to receive a show-cause notice or a personal hearing.
However, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the jewelry was gifted to her by her mother-in-law, and she was wearing it at the time of travel. No show-cause notice was issued to her and the form relied upon by the department was a pre-filled waiver that the petitioner did not fully understand. Therefore, the form could not be treated as a valid waiver of statutory rights under the Customs Act.
On the other hand, the counsel for the Customs argued that the petitioner voluntarily signed the waiver form, expressing willingness to pay the fine and penalty. The confiscation and penalty orders were lawfully passed based on the waiver.
The judges observed that a waiver of the right to a show-cause notice could not be enforced based on a pre-filled form and not a properly explained or voluntary choice.
The bench cited the Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs case, wherein it was held that the legal rights under the Customs Act could not be waived through an unsigned or routine documentation lacking clarity or informed consent.
The court noted that no show-cause notice was issued within the statutory time of one year, and no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner.
Since the petitioner was allowed to re-export the jewelry upon payment by the Appellate Authority, the court directed the Customs Department to release the jewelry after payment of the redemption fine and penalty.
The bench permitted the petitioner to either personally collect the jewelry or authorize a representative with written confirmation. While disposing of the petition, the judges waived the warehousing charges.