The Delhi High Court strongly directed the Customs Department to release the detained gold bangles to the Petitioner, subject to the payment of warehousing charges. This direction came in wake of the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Mr Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2025: DHC: 1162-DB], where it was clarified that “jewellery that is bona fide in personal use by the tourist would not be excluded from the ambit of personal effects as defined under the Baggage Rules. Further, the Department is required to make a distinction between ‘jewellery’ and ‘personal jewellery’ while considering seizure of items for being in violation of the Baggage Rules.”
Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani [(2017) 16 SCC 93], where it was held that bona fide jewellery carried by a tourist as part of her baggage for personal use cannot be completely excluded from the ambit of ‘personal effects’.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Pratibha Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that when the Petitioner, an Indian citizen, was returning from Riyadh after meeting her husband, the four gold bangles worn by her, forming part of her personal jewellery, were detained at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, that too without affording any personal hearing, merely because she did not declare them. The Bench, therefore, deprecated the conduct of the Adjudicating Authority in detaining the jewellery by simply holding that four gold bangles collectively of 100 grams with an average purity of 998 could not be considered as personal jewellery, and rather were prohibited goods, which is contrary to the settled law.
The Bench noted that the Adjudicating Authority, relying on Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, did not accord any personal hearing to the Petitioner on the premise that the Petitioner is an ineligible passenger, as the value of the gold carried by the Petitioner was much higher than the cap which has been fixed under the Baggage Rules, and it would not come under ‘personal effects. The Bench, therefore, concluded that the absolute confiscation of the four gold bangles without even permitting payment of any duty, redemption fine, or penalty seems to be an extreme measure taken by the Adjudicating Authority.
Case Relied On:
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani [(2017) 16 SCC 93]
Mr Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2025: DHC: 1162-DB]
Appearances:
Advocates Dr. Ashutosh, Fatima, and Prewez, for the Petitioner
Advocates Aakarsh Srivastava and Anand Pandey, for the Respondent
