The Delhi High Court has ruled that personal jewellery worn by a passenger cannot be confiscated by customs authorities merely due to its purity or weight. The Court set aside an order of absolute confiscation passed against a woman passenger, Shamina, whose four gold bangles—collectively weighing 100 grams—were seized at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta in Shamina v. Commissioner of Customs [W.P.(C) 7230/2025].
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Shamina, an Indian citizen, had travelled to Riyadh to visit her husband and was wearing the four gold bangles as part of her personal jewellery. Upon her return to India on March 19, 2024, she did not declare the jewellery at the airport, claiming it was part of her personal effects.
The Customs Department detained the bangles and later, on October 9, 2024, passed an Order-in-Original ordering their absolute confiscation. The order was issued under Sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and a penalty of ₹1,00,000 was imposed under Sections 112(a) and 112(b).
The Department also denied Shamina the benefit of the “Free Allowance” under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs read with the Baggage Rules, 2016, declaring her an “ineligible passenger”.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Shamina challenged the confiscation on the grounds that the bangles were her personal jewellery, worn on her person, and not new or concealed goods. Her counsel argued that:
- No proper show-cause notice was issued.
- No personal hearing was granted.
- The waiver of show-cause notice and hearing by her advocate was contrary to law.
Customs Department’s Stand
The Customs Department defended the confiscation, stating that Shamina’s lawyer had waived the show-cause notice and accepted an oral notice. It further argued that the gold bangles were of high purity (998) and thus could not be treated as “used personal effects”.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court held that the confiscation order was legally untenable for multiple reasons:
- No Personal Hearing:
“No personal hearing has been granted to the Petitioner in the present case,” the Court observed. It emphasized that such a hearing cannot be waived as per settled law. - Nature of Jewellery:
The Court noted that the Adjudicating Authority wrongly concluded that the bangles could not be considered personal jewellery due to their purity. It rejected this reasoning as contrary to law. - Reference to Precedents:
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani [(2017) 16 SCC 93], which held that used personal jewellery of a traveller cannot be excluded from “personal effects” under the Baggage Rules.
The Supreme Court had observed:
“The presumption that the jewellery found in her baggage cannot be considered as personal effects owing to its high monetary value is rebutted… The respondent was entitled to import personal jewellery duty free.”
The Court also cited its own Division Bench ruling in Saba Simran v. Union of India, upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 11281/2025, which distinguished between “personal jewellery” and “jewellery” under Rule 2(vi) of the Baggage Rules, 2016.
Additionally, in Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs, the High Court had reiterated that bona fide personal jewellery of tourists should not be excluded from the ambit of “personal effects”.
Final Decision
Setting aside the impugned confiscation order, the Court directed:
“The detained gold bangles are directed to be released to the Petitioner within four weeks subject to the payment of warehousing charges, as applicable on the date of detention.”
The petition was disposed of accordingly, and all pending applications were closed.
