The Delhi High Court has come down heavily on the Customs Department for detaining a gold ring weighing 21 grams, stating that such cases show how the department’s resources are “completely being wasted away.” The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain ordered the immediate release of the jewellery without payment of any warehousing charges and imposed costs of Rs. 5,000 on the Customs Department.
Background of the Case
The Petitioner, Ms. Sayara, approached the High Court seeking the release of her gold ring, weighing 21 grams, which was seized by the Customs Authorities on July 14, 2024, upon her arrival at IGI Airport, New Delhi, from Dubai.
The Petitioner contended that the seized ring was personal jewellery received as a gift from her brother-in-law. An adjudication order dated July 21, 2025, had already directed the unconditional release of the item. However, the Petitioner was compelled to file the writ petition as the ring had not been released.
Arguments and Submissions
During the proceedings, the Counsel for the Customs Department, Mr. Piyush Beriwal, submitted that the Petitioner’s statement regarding the Department filing an appeal against the adjudication order was false.
Conversely, the Counsel for the Petitioner informed the Court that the Petitioner received an email on December 9, 2025, stating that the adjudication order dated July 21, 2025, had been accepted by the Department. The Petitioner also averred that during the seizure, she was made to state that she was willing to pay customs duty and penalty and did not want a Show Cause Notice.
Adjudication Order Findings
The Court perused the adjudication order dated July 21, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The adjudicating authority had recorded that the value of the detained goods was Rs. 1,42,775, which is less than Rs. 10 Lakh.
In the adjudication proceedings, the authority relied on judgments including Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence vs Ms. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017) and Mr. Makhinder Chopra Vs. Commissioner of Customs (2025), concluding that the gold ring was “personal jewellery of Indian origin” and was not liable for confiscation.
The adjudication order explicitly stated:
“I find that the detained gold ring is not liable for confiscation as the same is personal jewellery of Indian origin (and not imported) of the Pax and may be allowed to be released without payment of duty/fine/penalty as it is established that the ‘personal jewellery’ is includible in ‘personal effects’ of the Pax and has not been imported into India.”
The authority further held that the passenger had not committed any act rendering her liable for penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The High Court expressed strong disapproval regarding the detention of such a small quantity of gold. The Bench observed:
“The present is a case which shows how the resources of the Customs Department are completely being wasted away in such matters.”
The Court further noted:
“In the opinion of this Court, firstly, the detention of the gold ring itself was completely misplaced by the Customs Authorities. Moreover, in case of personal effects, such as a ring being worn or received as a gift, when the weight of the item is so low, the detention should not have been effected.”
The Bench found it “quite unreasonable” that the Petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition for the release of a 21-gram gold ring despite the adjudication order being passed in July 2025.
The Court directed that the adjudication order be given effect to and the gold ring be released to the Petitioner. The Court specified:
“No warehousing charges shall be required to be paid by the Petitioner.”
Additionally, the Court awarded costs of Rs. 5,000 to the Petitioner, payable by the Customs Department. A Nodal Officer was appointed to facilitate the compliance of the order.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sayara v. Commissioner of Customs
Case No.: W.P.(C) 18588/2025
Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain
Counsel for Petitioner: Dr. Ashutosh and Ms. Fatima, Advocates
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Advocate
