Customs Wrongly Treated 998 Purity Gold Jewellery As Prohibited Goods Under Baggage Rules: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Traveller

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,

“On the aspect of personal effects and jewellery, the Adjudicating Authority has merely held that because of the purity, the same cannot be considered as personal jewellery as it is prohibited goods. This is contrary to the settled law.”

Baggage Rules 2016 framed under the Customs Act 1962 ensure that every passenger entering India passes through a Customs check. It allows duty-free clearance of certain items, including used household articles, professional equipment, and personal effects to eligible passengers.

The High Court has on several ocassions held that persona; effects include personal gold jewellery of a passenger.

In the case at hand, Petitioner's four gold bangles of 998 purity were seized on her return from Riyadh. She claimed that she was wearing the said bangles when she flew to Riyadh and thus on her return, she did not declare the same (as they were her personal jewellery).

The Customs however detained the bangles and the Adjudicating Authority subsequently recorded that these are bangles with average purity of 998 and therefore, are not in the nature of jewellery.

The High Court cited its decision in Saba Simran vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) where it was held that 'personal jewellery' of a person coming to India, 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 2016 Rules.

“In view of the above settled law, 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. Moreover, personal hearing cannot be waived as per the settled law,” the Court said and granted relief to the woman.

Note: In Mubina v. Commissioner of Customs (2025) too the High Court had held that “It is normal practice and part of our culture, at least in our country, that women wear basic jewellery such as bangles as part of their personal effects. The same could not have been detained by the Customs Department only on the basis that the same were of 24 carat gold, unless any other special circumstances exist for such detention.”

Appearance: Dr. Ashutosh, Ms. Fatima and Mr. Prewez, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SSC with Mr.Anand Pandey, Adv. for Respondent

Case title: Shamina v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 941

Case no.: W.P.(C) 7230/2025

Click here to read order