Delhi High Court Directs Review of Baggage Rules to Prevent Harassment of Air Travelers Carrying Gold Jewellery for Personal Use
Kiran Raj
The Delhi High Court directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) to review the Baggage Rules, 2016, particularly the provisions relating to gold and jewellery carried by travelers from abroad. The Court observed procedural concerns and discrepancies in how the Customs Department handles such items, calling for a balanced approach to prevent harassment of genuine travelers while addressing gold smuggling.
The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated February 6, 2024, and an Order-in-Appeal dated September 23, 2024, issued by the Customs Department. These orders confiscated two gold kadas and one gold chain carried by the petitioner and imposed a redemption fine of ₹75,000 and a personal penalty of ₹1,10,000 under the Customs Act, 1962.
The petitioner, represented by advocate Mr. Ashish Panday, argued that the confiscation was arbitrary and requested relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel for the Customs Department, including Mr. Shubham Tyagi and Mr. Harpreet Singh, defended the actions as being in compliance with the Baggage Rules, 2016.
The Court examined Rule 2(vi) and Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, which specify:
- Rule 2(vi): Defines “personal effects” as items for daily necessities but excludes jewellery.
- Rule 5: Allows passengers residing abroad for more than one year to bring duty-free jewellery up to 20 grams (₹50,000 value cap for men) or 40 grams (₹1,00,000 value cap for women).
The Court observed that these limits are outdated, given the current market value of gold. Justice Prathiba M. Singh stated: “With the maximum limit of ₹1,00,000, the gold that could be purchased may only be around 15 grams.”
The Court examined the Guide for Travellers, issued by CBIC, and noted that while the rules mandate declaration of jewellery exceeding prescribed limits, they do not adequately clarify this requirement for travelers.
The Court flagged concerns about the treatment of genuine travelers carrying gold for personal or social purposes, such as weddings. It was recorded that Customs officials, under the current framework, have significant discretionary power, which could result in the harassment of passengers.
Justice Singh further observed: “While there is no doubt that any illegal smuggling of gold deserves to be curbed, at the same time, bona fide tourists and travelers should not face an onerous process or unnecessary harassment.”
The Court also stated instances where frequent travelers have been found smuggling gold under the guise of personal effects, noting the need for stricter enforcement measures against such activities.
The Court directed the CBIC to revisit the Baggage Rules, 2016, focusing on two key aspects:
- Prevention of Harassment: Ensuring genuine tourists and travelers, including Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIO), are not subject to unnecessary scrutiny.
- Curbing Smuggling: Implementing effective measures to prevent misuse of baggage allowances for smuggling purposes.
The Court ordered the CBIC to file a report detailing the reassessment of the rules, including any coordination with other departments or ministries. The report is to be submitted by March 27, 2025.
The Customs Department was also directed to address procedural concerns and ensure travelers are adequately informed about declaration requirements.
Case Title: Qamar Jahan v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) 198/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Dharmesh Sharma
[Read/Download order]
