Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has set aside an order of absolute confiscation issued by the Customs Department pertaining to four gold bangles detained from a passenger at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. The Court directed the release of the detained gold bangles to the passenger upon payment of applicable warehousing charges. The Bench concluded that the action of denying any opportunity to redeem the goods through duty payment or penalty, coupled with the absence of a personal hearing, amounted to an excessive and unjustified exercise of authority by the adjudicating authority.

The matter arose from a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the release of four gold bangles weighing 100 grams, detained by the Customs Department on 19 March 2024. The petitioner, an Indian citizen, had returned from Riyadh and was wearing the said bangles as part of her personal jewellery. She was intercepted at the airport and a detention receipt was issued for the items. Subsequently, an Order-in-Original dated 9 October 2024 was passed by the adjudicating authority, ordering absolute confiscation of the jewellery and imposing a penalty of Rs.1,00,000.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Retirement Of Colour-Blind Driver | Says Employer Must Reasonably Accommodate Disability Acquired During Service

According to the impugned order, the petitioner was declared an “ineligible passenger” under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30 June 2017, read with the Baggage Rules, 2016. The authority denied any Free Allowance and declared that the detained jewellery was to be confiscated under Sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act was also imposed.

The petitioner's case was that the jewellery in question was used personal jewellery, worn by her during her trip, and thus, should qualify as personal effects. It was contended that there was no concealment or mala fide intention, and that the jewellery was neither newly purchased nor intended for sale. The petitioner further submitted that her legal representatives had visited the Customs office and received the impugned order but were not afforded a personal hearing. Furthermore, it was argued that the waiver of Show Cause Notice (SCN) by her representative was contrary to law.

The respondent, through senior standing counsel, contended that the advocate engaged by the petitioner had waived the SCN and personal hearing, having received the oral SCN and thereby rendering the adjudication process valid.

The Court, after examining the matter, recorded: "It is to be noted that no personal hearing has been granted to the Petitioner in the present case." The Bench also observed that the adjudicating authority relied on Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 to assert that the value of the jewellery exceeded permissible limits and that the purity of the bangles indicated that they were not in the nature of personal jewellery.

Refuting this reasoning, the Court stated: "The weight of four gold bangles collectively is 100 grams which means that each bangle weighs 25 grams... the Adjudicating Authority has merely held that because of the purity, the same cannot be considered as personal jewellery... This is contrary to the settled law."

The Bench relied on the Supreme Court's judgement in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, (2017) 16 SCC 93, where the apex court held: "It is not permissible to completely exclude jewellery from the ambit of 'personal effects'." The judgment had further stated: "The respondent did not violate the provisions of Section 77 of the Act... Declarations are deemed to be implicit... Jewellery was bona fide jewellery of the tourist for her personal use and was intended to be taken out of India."

In the said judgement, the Supreme Court had categorically stated: "Foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them... Bringing jewellery into India for taking it out with the passenger is permissible and is not liable to any import duty."

The High Court also cited its Division Bench judgement in Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors. (2024: DHC:9155-DB), which held: "Personal jewellery which is not found to have been acquired on an overseas trip and was always a used personal effect of the passenger would not be subject to the monetary prescriptions incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of the 2016 Rules."

The Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition against this decision, thereby upholding the High Court's reasoning.

Further, the Bench referred to its decision in Mr. Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi, 2025: DHC:1162-DB, where it had held: "Jewellery that is bona fide in personal use by the tourist would not be excluded from the ambit of personal effects... the Department is required to make a distinction between 'jewellery' and 'personal jewellery'."

The Court found that the adjudicating authority's reasoning—based solely on the purity of the jewellery—was contrary to established legal principles. It also stated that the denial of an opportunity to be heard contravened procedural fairness.

The Court set aside the impugned order of absolute confiscation. It directed that the detained four gold bangles be released to the petitioner within four weeks, subject to the payment of warehousing charges. The Court specified: "The warehousing charges shall be payable in terms of applicable charges on the date of detention."

Also Read: Dog-Licked Mid-Day Meal Served To 83 Students | Chhattisgarh High Court Slams Gross Negligence, Seeks Affidavit On Anti-Rabies Doses, Action And Compensation

Additionally, the Court recorded: "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."

The Bench noted that personal hearing cannot be waived as per the settled law. Hence, the lack of such a hearing rendered the confiscation order procedurally deficient.

"Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside," recorded the Court.

Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and pending applications were also disposed of. The next date of hearing, i.e., 24 July 2025, was cancelled.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Dr. Ashutosh, Ms. Fatima, and Mr. Prewez, Advocates

For the Respondent: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Anand Pandey, Advocate

Case Title: Shamina v. Commissioner of Customs

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6056-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 7230/2025 & CMAPPL. 42345/2025

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta