HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO.31558 OF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao)

The above writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in seizing the gold ornaments of the petitioner vide Detention Receipt No.DR/INHYD4/15-09-2024/003382, dated 15.09.2024, as illegal, null, void, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and contravention to the Customs Act, 1962 and consequently to release the gold jewellery, under the detention report.

2. We have heard Mr.Ashish Pandey, learned counsel representing Mr. G.Premgopal Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner on record, Mr. B.Mukharjee, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. M.P.Kashyap, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, that the petitioner was intercepted by the Customs Officers at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, on 15.09.2024, upon his arrival from Dubai on Flight No.6E1484. The Customs Officials intercepted and inquired about the gold jewellery of the petitioner. The petitioner alleged to have informed them that the gold jewellery was lawfully purchased in India and alleged to have produced the original invoices with BIS hallmark as proof of its lawful purchase within India.

4. However, the respondents being not satisfied with the said explanation and invoices have detained the said jewellery under Detention Receipt No.DR/INHYD4/15-09-2024/003382, dated 15.09.2024. The petitioner has submitted an application through his counsel (through e-mail dated 26. 09.2024) and also by speed post on 27.09.2024 along with a reminder dated 02.10.2024 to the 3rd respondent requesting him to release the detained gold jewellery as the invoices produced show the purchase in India by setting aside the detention receipt dated 15.09.2024. It is contended that respondents have not considered his application for release in pursuance of application dated 15.09.2004 (by e-mail) and 02.10.2024 (sent by speed post) by perusing the invoices submitted by him.

5. The inaction of the respondents in releasing the gold jewellery as per the detention receipt dated 15.09.2024, the present writ petition is filed.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, under the Baggage Rules 2016, a male passenger can carry 20 grams of the weight of gold jewelery and a female passenger can carry upto 40 grams. Further, it is contended that the said Baggage Rules were issued as early as 2016 and that for the gentleman passenger, who is residing Abroad for more than one year, 20 grams or worth of Rs.50,000/- gold jewellery would be too less, considering the existing circumstances and passion to wear gold ornaments. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Kartik Sahdev v. Commissioner of Customs1 has directed the respondent-Customs to look into the issue and also take appropriate steps for increasing the weight of gold jewellery to be carried by a person, who stays in other countries and who frequently visits India, but, however the said issue is pending with Central Board of Intelligence and Customs.

7. The learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C).No.3612 of 2024, CM Application No.14845/2024 & CM Application No.26451/2024, wherein the Hon’ble High Court after considering

1 2025 SCC Online Del 2070

the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pushpa Lekhumal Tulani vs. Additional Commissioner, Customs2 has quashed the order in original with a direction to release the gold jewellery under the detention report forthwith.

8. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that the petitioner was intercepted by the Customs Officials on the reasonable belief that he was wearing and carrying certain gold jeweller