The Customs Department has reportedly imposed a penalty of ₹89.91 crore on Kannada actor Harshavardhini Ranya, popularly known as Ranya Rao, in connection with alleged gold smuggling from Dubai to Bengaluru. The action follows a 399-page adjudication order examining her alleged involvement alongside three others.
The proceedings mark a significant development in a case that began with an airport interception in March 2025 and subsequently expanded into an investigation into earlier gold consignments and the alleged movement of their sale proceeds.
According to reports published on October 1, Tarun Konduru Raju was penalised ₹49.51 crore, while Sahil Jain and Bharat Kumar Jain were each penalised ₹53.06 crore. Together with the reported penalty against Rao, these amounts total ₹245.54 crore. The reports linked the adjudication to the alleged movement of approximately 113 kg of gold between March 2024 and February 2025.
Buy Now: 100+ Judgements On Customs Classification
However, a subsequent report published by The Times of India on October 2 put the overall penalties at ₹270.8 crore, including ₹102.5 crore against Rao and ₹62.1 crore against Raju. It reported penalties of approximately ₹53.1 crore each against the two Jain co-accused. The published figures therefore differ, and the complete adjudication order is needed to establish the precise penalty breakup and the consignments covered by each amount.
The case came to light on March 3, 2025, when Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials intercepted Rao at Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru following her arrival from Dubai.
According to the account supplied, officials recovered 14.213 kg of foreign-origin gold valued at approximately ₹12.56 crore. Subsequent searches allegedly resulted in the recovery of gold jewellery worth ₹2.06 crore and Indian currency amounting to ₹2.67 crore.
The airport seizure prompted investigators to examine whether the incident formed part of a wider operation involving repeated consignments brought into India. The subsequent inquiry examined the alleged roles of Rao, Raju, Sahil Jain and Bharat Kumar Jain in the movement and disposal of the gold.
The investigation extended beyond the gold physically recovered at the airport to alleged smuggling activities during the preceding year.
Reports concerning the ₹89.91 crore penalty refer to approximately 113 kg of gold allegedly brought from Dubai between March 2024 and February 2025. This quantity must be distinguished from the larger figure of 127.287 kg cited in the Enforcement Directorate’s account of the alleged operation, which covered March 2024 to March 2025.
These figures describe different reported scopes of investigation. They should not be presented interchangeably as the quantity seized from Rao at the airport.
According to the supplied account of the Enforcement Directorate’s prosecution complaint filed in February 2026, the agency alleged that 127.287 kg of foreign-origin gold, valued at approximately ₹102.55 crore, had been smuggled into India over a year.
The ED further alleged that the gold was disposed of through a network involving handlers and jewellers, with proceeds subsequently channelled through hawala transactions.
The money-laundering investigation therefore concerns the alleged handling and movement of proceeds arising from the suspected smuggling operation, in addition to the underlying allegations concerning the import of gold.
The supplied account also refers to show-cause proceedings in September 2025 proposing a penalty of approximately ₹102.55 crore against Rao in connection with alleged smuggling of more than 127 kg of gold.
That earlier proposal should be distinguished from the penalty imposed through adjudication. A show-cause notice sets out allegations and proposed action for consideration; the adjudication order records the authority’s determination after the proceedings.
Given the differing figures in current reports, the earlier proposed amount should not automatically be treated as either an additional penalty or the final amount payable.
The Customs adjudication is separate from the criminal and money-laundering proceedings arising from the case. The imposition of a Customs penalty should therefore not be described as a criminal conviction.
Read More: JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 1 OCTOBER, 2026
