Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Shamina – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Customs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. confiscation of jewelry as personal effects. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on personal hearing waiver. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observations on jewelry classification. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. distinction between jewelry and personal jewelry. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. order for release of detained jewelry. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Shamina under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of the four gold bangles of the Petitioner, weighing 100 grams, which have been detained by the Customs Department vide detention receipt bearing no. 4019 dated 19th March 2024. An Order-in-Original dated 9th October 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) has been passed by which absolute confiscation of the four gold bangles has been ordered. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:
“i) I deny the 'Free Allowance', if any, admissible to the Pax Shamina for not declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted her and recovered the
Bona fide personal jewellery is protected under personal effects, and failure to provide a personal hearing invalidates confiscation orders by customs.
The court affirmed that personal jewellery should not be excluded from the category of personal effects under the Baggage Rules, ensuring fair treatment for bona fide tourists.
Personal jewellery carried by a passenger is not subject to customs restrictions if not intended for import, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines from customs authorities.
The court ruled that gold jewellery worn by a foreign national upon entering India is considered personal effects and cannot be confiscated without clear legal prohibition.
The absence of a Show Cause Notice and personal hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering customs confiscation orders unlawful.
The Baggage Rules do not apply to jewelry worn by travelers, limiting customs authority in seizing sentimental cultural items, framed as ultra vires under Section 79 of the Customs Act.
Worn jewelry is not considered baggage under the Customs Act, and regulations exceeding statutory limits are ultra vires.
The court ruled that the Baggage Rules, 2016, cannot exceed or restrict the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly regarding personal ornaments worn by travelers.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
