Following Delhi HC Nudge, Customs Takes Measures To Prevent Harassment Of Genuine Air Travellers Carrying Gold Jewellery

As per an affidavit filed by the Centre, the Department has taken following steps:

1. A person whose goods are detained shall be issued detention receipts which would bear the time and date of detention, number of items seized and the net weight of the said items.

(In Anjali Pandey vs. Union of India (2025) the Court had issued directions for issuance of proper detention receipts to an affected passenger.)

2. Pre-printed form for waiver of Show Cause Notice is done away with. If notice is waived, notice of personal hearing would be given to the concerned passenger through Whatsapp, email id as also through the authorized signatory.

Passengers will also be duly informed about the applicable provisions in respect of issuance of an oral SCN and the procedure thereto.

(In Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs (2025) the Court had held that waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing obtained on a Standard Performa, would be contrary to law.)

3. Once the adjudicating order is passed, the same shall be communicated on the email address of the passenger and on Whatsapp number, with a clear note that the passenger is free to challenge the same within 90 days (60 days + 30 days).

(In Bonanza Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Anr. (2024) the Court had called upon the Department to send notices via email, in addition to service by speed post, registered post or courier.)

4. Insofar as travellers of foreign origin are concerned, personal effects including jewellery shall not be detained so long as the same are declared in the 'Red Channel' and the said travellers undertake to re-export the same.

(In Luvleen Maingi v. UoI (2024) the High Court had held that personal jewellery worn to India by a foreign national is not subject to customs duty.)

The development comes in the case of Qamar Jahan, whose two gold kadas and one gold chain were detained by the Customs. The Court had therein urged the Central government as well as the Customs department to review the Baggage Rules, 2016 which regulate the amount of gold or gold jewellery that can be carried by a person travelling to India by air.

In its affidavit, the Department submitted that a detailed stakeholder consultation is currently being carried out by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs and some time will be required to amend the Baggage Rules. Meanwhile, the above steps are being implemented.

The Court has now asked the Department to:

1. Sensitise all Customs officials;

2. Ensure that old jewellery of even Indian travellers, personal jewellery which is being worn by the travellers during travel or used jewellery is not unnecessarily detained in a routine manner;

3. Look into the applicable provisions of law and place before the Court, the mechanism which it wishes to adopt for issuing oral SCN and providing the opportunity of personal hearing in compliance with the law;

4. Consider the manner in which the statements under Section 108 of the Act are recorded in standard form from all passengers;

5. Relook and simplify the procedures for appraisal and for disposal of the items which are detained.

The Court further directed that if the Baggage Rules cannot be amended by the next date of hearing, a Standard Operating Procedure be placed on record which shall be followed by the Customs Department till the time the Baggage Rules are amended.

The matter is next listed on May 19.

Appearance: Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv for Petitioner; Mr. Shubham Tyagi, Sr. Standing Counsel, CBIC with Ms. N.Ojha Mr. P.Mahajan, Advs. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms.Suhani Mathur, Mr. Jai Ahuja & Mr. Ashay Saxena Advs. Ms. Mayusha Goyal, Additional Commissioner Mr. Maharishi Singhal, Assistant Commissioner Mr. Nitin Raj, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Sandeep Lakra & Mr. Ravinder Singh, Superintendents. Mr. Rohit, Mr. Ajay Pratap, Mr. Avinash Yadav & Mr. Umesh Kumar, Inspectors.

Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 401

Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025

Click here to read order