Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesDelhi High Court Orders Release of Gold Bangles Seized from Umrah Pilgrim,...

Delhi High Court Orders Release of Gold Bangles Seized from Umrah Pilgrim, Frowns On Customs Dept. for Bypassing Due Process

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Delhi High Court has directed the release of gold jewellery seized from a woman returning from Umrah, observing that the customs department had violated statutory requirements by failing to issue a Show Cause Notice.

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, ruled in favour of the petitioner and quashed both the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal passed by the customs authorities. The bench emphasized that the confiscation was illegal due to the absence of a proper Show Cause Notice and personal hearing as mandated under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The case pertained to Ms. Gulista Khatoon, who was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi on September 20, 2023, while returning from a pilgrimage to Mecca. Two gold bangles weighing 117 grams, which she was wearing, were detained by the Customs Department. Authorities later appraised the bangles at ₹6.47 lakh and imposed a penalty of Rs. 65,000 along with an equal amount as redemption fine, directing their absolute confiscation without providing her a formal hearing.

“Natural justice is not merely lip-service,” the Court observed, rejecting the department’s reliance on a standard pre-printed waiver allegedly signed by the petitioner. The bench referred to earlier precedents including Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs and Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs, reiterating that printed waivers of SCN and personal hearing violate legal safeguards.

The Court also clarified that personal jewellery used by a returning passenger qualifies as “personal effects” and cannot be detained merely on the grounds that it is made of 24-carat gold. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the High Court underscored that such jewellery, if meant for personal use, is exempt from customs duty under the Baggage Rules, 2016.

In light of these findings, the Court ordered that the seized bangles be returned to the petitioner or her authorized representative by July 21, 2025. The Court also directed that warehousing charges, if any, be adjusted against the amount already deposited by the petitioner during appeal proceedings.

Case Details

Case Title: GULISTA KHATOON Versus Customs Commissioner

Case No.: W.P.(C) 9313/2025

Date:  08/07/2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: Dr. Ashutosh and Ms. Fatima

Counsel For Respondent: Harpreet Singh, SSC

Read More: CBDT Grants Income Tax Exemption to Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority for Past Assessment Years

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Revenue-Neutral Reverse Charge Liability Cannot Justify Extended Limitation: CESTAT Restricts ₹27.27 Lakh Service Tax Demand

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that...

SEBI Can’t Be Compelled Under RTI Act to Collect Information From BSE: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the Securities and Exchange Board of India...

IBBI Must Be Circumspect While Issuing SCN Due to Serious Impact on Insolvency Professionals: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has set aside an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India...

More like this

Revenue-Neutral Reverse Charge Liability Cannot Justify Extended Limitation: CESTAT Restricts ₹27.27 Lakh Service Tax Demand

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that...

SEBI Can’t Be Compelled Under RTI Act to Collect Information From BSE: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the Securities and Exchange Board of India...

IBBI Must Be Circumspect While Issuing SCN Due to Serious Impact on Insolvency Professionals: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has set aside an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India...