$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4531/2025 TURABEK RAKHIMOV .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Richa Kumari, Mr. Yatin Bhutani & Mr. Pawan, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms. Suhani Mathu, Mr. Jai Ahuja & Mr. Akshay Saxena, Advs. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 09.04.2025 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Turabek Rakhimov under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of the gold items weighing 195 grams (hereinafter, ‘gold items’) which were seized by the Respondent- Commissioner of Customs vide Detention Receipt No. 2046 dated 9th June 2023 ( New Detention Receipt No.69780 dated 10th August 2023) (hereinafter, ‘detention receipt’) 3. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a citizen of Uzbekistan. The Petitioner was detained by the Customs Officers on 9th June, 2023 at IGI Airport, New Delhi when he was coming to India and the following gold items were seized vide issuing of a detention receipt: i) One gold chain ii) Three gold rings iii) One bracelet. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 14:08:57 4. According to the Petitioner, after the detention receipt was issued, the Petitioner never received any Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’). Thus, the present petition has been filed seeking release of the goods items. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that no SCN was issued and no personal hearing was granted as there was a waiver for the same which was signed by the Petitioner. According to the ld. Counsel, an Order-in-Original has been passed on 11th August, 2023 which has been communicated to the Petitioner. But the mode of communication is unknown. 6. Considering that the stand of the Petitioner is that no SCN and no personal hearing was given, the Order-in-Original is not sustainable inasmuch as the same would be contrary to the principles of natural justice. This has been so held by this Court repeatedly in various orders including the order of this Court in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, (2025: DHC: 751-DB) where it was observed as under: “16. A perusal of Section 124 of the Act along with the alleged waiver which is relied upon would show that the oral SCN cannot be deemed to have been served in this manner as is being alleged by the Department. If an oral SCN waiver has to be agreed to by the person concerned, the same ought to be in the form of a proper declaration, consciously signed by the person concerned. Even then, an opportunity of hearing ought to be afforded, inasmuch as, the person concerned cannot be condemned unheard in these matters. Printed waivers of this nature would fundamentally violate rights of persons who are affected. Natural justice is not merely lip-service. It has to be given effect and complied with in letter and spirit. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 14:08:57 xxx xxx xxx 19. This Court is of the opinion that the printed waiver of SCN and the printed statement made in the request for release of goods cannot be considered or deemed to be an oral SCN, in compliance with Section 124. The SCN in the present case is accordingly deemed to have not been issued and thus the detention itself would be contrary to law. The order passed in original without issuance of SCN and without hearing the Petitioner, is not sustainable in law. The Order-in-Original dated 29th November, 2024 is accordingly set-aside.” 7. Moreover, considering the fact that the Petitioner is a foreign national and the weight of the goods, the gold items could also be considered as personal effects of the Petitioner. 8. Under these circumstances, the Respondent is directed to release the gold items to the Petitioner within a period of one week. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Petitioner shall be charged only 50% of the storage charges. 10. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J APRIL 9, 2025 Rahul/ck This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 14:08:57