Customs Department Can't Confiscate Personal Gold Jewellery Without Duty Payment Option: Delhi High Court

Customs Department Can't Confiscate Personal Gold Jewellery Without Duty Payment Option: Delhi High Court

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a woman whose 998 purity (equivalent to 24 karat) gold jewellery was wrongly treated as prohibited goods under the Baggage Rules, 2016 and absolutely confiscated by the Customs Department on her return to India.

Factual Background

The petitioner’s four gold bangles of 998 purity were seized upon her return from Riyadh. She asserted that she had been wearing these bangles when she departed for Riyadh, and thus, on her return, she did not declare them, considering them to be personal jewellery.

Procedural Background

The Customs Department detained the bangles, and the Adjudicating Authority recorded that, owing to their average purity of 998, they could not be considered jewellery. The petitioner challenged this finding before the High Court.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner’s Contentions:

• The bangles were personal jewellery and thus exempt from the Baggage Rules, 2016.
• She relied on previous Delhi High Court rulings, including Saba Simran vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024), holding that personal jewellery not acquired abroad and used as a personal effect is outside the scope of the 2016 Rules.

Respondent’s Contentions:

• The Customs Department argued that high-purity gold jewellery was prohibited under the Baggage Rules, 2016 and thus liable for confiscation.

Court’s Analysis

The Court reiterated the principle from Saba Simran that “personal jewellery” worn by a returning passenger, if not purchased during the trip abroad, is exempt from confiscation under the 2016 Rules.

It found that the absolute confiscation of the four bangles without offering payment of duty, redemption fine, or penalty was an extreme measure.

Reasoning & Analysis

The bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that personal hearing cannot be waived under settled law. The Court stressed that personal jewellery — even of 24 karat purity — is a personal effect, unless evidence suggests it was acquired abroad during the trip.

The Court also referred to Mubina v. Commissioner of Customs (2025), observing: “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 they were of 24 carat gold, unless any other special circumstances exist for such detention.”

Implications

This decision underscores the cultural significance of jewellery and ensures that returning passengers are not penalized for wearing personal ornaments. It also clarifies that Customs authorities must allow payment of duty or redemption fine before resorting to absolute confiscation.

Outcome

The High Court set aside the confiscation order and directed that the petitioner be given the option to pay duty, if applicable, rather than face absolute confiscation.

Appearance:

In this case the petitioner was represented by Dr. Ashutosh, Ms. Fatima and Mr. Prewez, Advocates..

Petitioner represented by Dr. Ashutosh, Ms. Fatima, and Mr. Prewez, Advocates.

Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SSC with Mr. Anand Pandey, Advocates Advocate.