Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, DHARMESH SHARMA, JJ
ANJALI PANDEY – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the seizure and the petitioner's claim for return. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. legal submissions regarding the treatment of jewellery under baggage rules. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis of baggage rules and jewellery as personal effects. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 20) |
| 4. court's decision on jewellery being personal effects and justification for returning the seized items. (Para 15 , 17 , 25) |
| 5. court's final directives on the return of jewellery or compensation. (Para 26 , 27 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
Brief Background
2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ for directing the Respondents to release and return the seized gold ornaments belonging to the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner is a Thai national who had travelled to Delhi from Thailand on 13th March, 2024. Upon her arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, she was intercepted by the Customs officials who enquired as to whether she was carrying any gold. The Petitioner was wearing three gold bangles which she showed to the Customs officia
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.
Gold and jewellary are freely importable items.Passing through green channel itself is declaration of there being no dutiable goods, more so when there is no attempt to conceal the goods. Intention o....
Bona fide personal jewellery is protected under personal effects, and failure to provide a personal hearing invalidates confiscation orders by customs.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of fact cannot be revisited unless they suffer from manifest perversity, and the court's decision was based on the positive fi....
Legal importation of gold requires compliance with customs duty and declaration; failure to declare renders goods liable for confiscation, but redemption options exist under the Act.
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
