The Delhi High Court has held that bona fide personal jewellery carried or worn by a passenger does not automatically constitute smuggling or dutiable goods.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has ordered the release of four gold bangles detained by the Customs Department from an Indian passenger returning from Riyadh. Absolute confiscation of personal jewellery without granting a personal hearing or offering redemption options was “an extreme measure.”
The court ruled in favour of the petitioner, an Indian citizen who had returned from Saudi Arabia wearing 100 grams of gold bangles — items she claimed were part of her personal jewellery.
The petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, in March 2024, wearing the bangles. The Customs Department detained the jewellery, valued at ₹6.27 lakh, citing violations under Sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. An Order-in-Original dated October 9, 2024, not only ordered absolute confiscation of the bangles but also imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh.
The Department declared her an “ineligible passenger” under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and Notification No. 50/2017-Customs, on the grounds that the jewellery had not been declared and was of high purity (998), allegedly excluding it from the definition of “personal effects.”
The Court found that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner before the confiscation order was issued, which violates principles of natural justice. The petitioner’s jewellery was worn and used, not concealed, and thus qualifies as personal effects as per judicial precedents. The Customs’ stance that high-purity jewellery cannot be personal use items was rejected as contrary to settled legal principles.
The Court quashed the Customs’ impugned order dated October 9, 2024. The Customs Department has been directed to release the gold bangles within four weeks upon payment of applicable warehousing charges.
The Court ruled that absolute confiscation without any option for redemption fine or duty payment was disproportionate.
Case Details
Case Title: Shamina Versus Commissioner Of Customs
Case No.: W.P.(C) 7230/2025 & CM APPL. 42345/2025
Date: 23rd July, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Dr. Ashutosh, Ms. Fatima and Mr. Prewez
Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SSC with Mr.Anand Pandey
Read More: No Show Cause Notice, No Hearing: Delhi High Court Quashes Detention of Passenger’s Gold Ornaments
