Personal Jewellery Not Prohibited under Baggage Rules: Delhi HC Orders Release of Bangles [Read Order]
Delhi HC quashes Customs’ confiscation of gold bangles, ruling that used personal jewellery worn by passengers is not prohibited under the Baggage Rules.
![Personal Jewellery Not Prohibited under Baggage Rules: Delhi HC Orders Release of Bangles [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/11/03/2102004-personal-jewellery-baggage-rules-delhi-hc-release-of-bangles-taxscan.webp "Personal Jewellery Not Prohibited under Baggage Rules: Delhi HC Orders Release of Bangles [Read Order]")
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of absolute confiscation passed by the Customs Department against petitioner Shamina and directed the release of her four gold bangles, weighing 100 grams. The court held that personal jewellery worn by passengers cannot be treated as prohibited goods under the Baggage Rules, 2016.
The petitioner, Shamina, an Indian citizen, had travelled to Riyadh to meet her husband and was wearing the gold bangles as part of her personal jewellery.
Upon arrival at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, she did not declare them as they were part of her personal effects. The bangles were detained by the Customs Department, and an Order-in-Original directed their absolute confiscation.
The Adjudicating Authority denied her free allowance, declared her an ineligible passenger, and ordered confiscation under Sections 111(d), (i), (j), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposing a penalty of ₹1,00,000 under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Act.
The petitioner contended that the confiscation was illegal since the gold bangles were used personal jewellery and therefore eligible for release. The petitioner also argued that no personal hearing had been granted and that the alleged waiver of the show cause notice was contrary to law.
The respondent authority, however, maintained that the petitioner’s lawyer had waived the show cause notice and personal hearing, and therefore, there was no illegality in the proceedings.
The Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that no personal hearing had been granted to the petitioner and that such a waiver is impermissible in law.
Your Trusted Guide to the Income-tax Act, Updated for 2025! Click here
The Court noted that the authority had treated the four gold bangles of 998 purity as non-jewellery merely because of their purity and had concluded that the same could not be regarded as personal effects. The Court termed this reasoning contrary to settled law.
The Bench, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017), reiterated that jewellery carried as part of a passenger’s baggage cannot be completely excluded from the definition of ‘personal effects’. It also referred to its own Division Bench judgment in Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors. (2024), which distinguished between “personal jewellery” and “jewellery per se,” and noted that this decision had been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
In light of these precedents, the Court held that the order of absolute confiscation without allowing the petitioner to pay duty, redemption fine, or penalty was an extreme measure. It concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable both for the denial of personal hearing and for the failure to distinguish personal jewellery from prohibited goods.
Also Read: “Personal Effects” u/s2(vi) of Baggage Rules cannot exclude Personal Jewelry or Ornaments: Delhi HC
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Order-in-Original and directed the Customs Department to release the four gold bangles to the petitioner within four weeks, subject to payment of warehousing charges applicable on the date of detention.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
