The Union Budget 2026-27 was presented by the Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman where she had proposed to revise Baggage Rules governing baggage clearance during international travel to address genuine concerns of passengers. The revised rules will enhance duty-free allowances in line with the present-day travel realities and provide clarity in temporary carriage of goods brought in or taken out.
The question that naturally arises is what compelled the government to reconsider the existing Baggage Rules. The answer lies in the growing number of disputes between international passengers and the customs authorities that ultimately reached the courts. Judicial scrutiny revealed recurring issues such as the practice of customs officers using standardised waiver formats for show cause notices and pressuring passengers to sign them, as well as the seizure of personal-use items including watches, gold jewellery, and other valuables.
The courts’ firm approach in protecting passenger rights and calling out arbitrary enforcement played a significant role in prompting the government to rethink and propose a more balanced and passenger-friendly baggage regime.
10 Court Rulings On Baggage Rules
Case Title: Qamar Jahan Versus Union Of India, Represented By Secretary, Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the values of gold that would be permissible under the Baggage Rules would also have to be re-looked by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) as the same appears to be completely not in tune with the current market value of gold.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma held that let this matter be referred to the Chairman, CBIC for reconsideration of the Baggage Rules 2016. Let the re-consideration be undertaken in coordination with any other Departments or Ministries as may be required and the report be filed before this Court regarding the reconsideration and the manner thereof. The report shall be filed by the next date of hearing.
Case Title: Luvleen Maingi Versus Union Of India
Case No.: W.P.(C) 11877/2018
The Delhi High Court quashes customs duty demand ornaments and jewellery being carried as part of baggage does not qualify as “smuggling”.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that petitioner is a foreign national, who brought a chain and a kara by wearing them on his body while arriving from Bangkok. The same was not brought in a concealed manner.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Versus The Commissioner Of Customs
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15973/2024
The Delhi High Court has directed the release of goods detained without show cause notice (SCN) on the grounds that printed waiver of SCN cannot be considered to be an oral SCN but directed that the storage charges will be borne by traveller.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma have referred the matter to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) for undertaking a review of the various forms including Detention receipts, Requests for appraisal and connected documents. It must be duly changed in accordance with law and in compliance with the principles of Natural Justice.
Case Title: Mr Makhinder Chopra Versus Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2049/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the release of Russian National’s gold chain observing that there is a limited applicability of Baggage Rules on foreign tourists.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that on the ground of limited applicability of the Baggage Rules to the tourist of foreign origin and as jewellery is part of personal effects, the detention of Petitioner’s gold chain would have to be set aside.
Case Title: Mohamed Shamiuddeen Versus Commissioner Of Customs
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2030/2025
In Mohamed Shamiuddeen v. Commissioner of Customs, the Delhi High Court ordered the release of an NRI’s Rolex wristwatch that had been seized by customs officials. The bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma, held that an oral waiver of the show cause notice and personal hearing in a standard form is unlawful. The Court noted that the Customs Department had the petitioner’s contact details but failed to issue a proper show cause notice after receiving no response to its initial email. The judgment reinforces the necessity for proper legal procedures in confiscation cases.
Case Title: Gor Sharian Versus The Commissioner Of Customs
Case No.: W.P.(C) 1807/2025, CM APPL. 8675/2025 & CM APPL. 8676/2025
The Court delivered another significant ruling in Gor Sharian v. The Commissioner of Customs, where it found that the Customs Department disposed of a Russian national’s detained gold without informing the petitioner. The bench directed the department to pay the petitioner the full market value of the detained gold. The judgment highlights the importance of transparency and due process in handling seized assets.
The Delhi High Court has held that the non-resident Indian (NRI) is fully entitled to the benefit provided to an eligible passenger under the Baggage Rules, 2016.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has observed that the goods namely the gold chain constitute personal effects of the Petitioner – NRI and could not have been seized in the manner the Customs department have.
Case Title: Mr Makhinder Chopra Versus Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2049/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the customs dept. to discontinue practice of making tourists sign undertaking in standard form waiving show cause notice and personal hearing is contrary to the provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act.
Case Title: Thanushika Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)
Case No.: W.P.No.5005 of 2024
The Madras High Court directed the enquiry against the customs officer for seizing the Mangalsutra of Sri Lankan citizen seized without following principles of natural justice.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that it is very unfair on the part of the Principle Customs Commissioner to remove the “thaalikodi” (mangalsutra) from the petitioner, who is yet to start her marriage life with her husband at France in the last week of January, 2024.
Later on, the division bench comprising Justice S S Sundar and Justice C Saravanan has stayed a single judge’s order that declared a provision of the Baggage Rules ultra vires to the Customs Act regarding jewellery worn on the person. The single judge had also directed disciplinary action against Air Customs officers who seized gold ornaments, including the nuptial thread (thaali) of a Sri Lankan national, at Chennai Airport.
The interim stay was passed while hearing appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, challenging the single judge’s order dated January 31, 2025. The bench directed the Customs department to return the seized jewellery after obtaining appropriate security, bond, or personal guarantee from the passengers concerned.
Case Title: Thanushika Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)
Case No.: W.P.No.5005 of 2024
The Madras High Court has held that the jewellery worn in person will not come under the purview of Baggage Rules.The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the Baggage Rule, 2016 will apply only to the baggage and the Rule made to the extent that the article “carried on the person” will not include baggage, which was in excess of powers conferred by the Rule making Authority and would amount to ultra vires. Therefore, the jewellery worn in person will not come under the purview of baggage.
