Case Details: Gulista Khatoon vs. Commissioner of Customs (2026) 40 Centax 249 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
- Dr Ashutosh & Ms Fatima, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Harpreet Singh, SSC with Jai Ahuja & Sanidhya Sharma, Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a passenger returning from a foreign pilgrimage, arrived at the airport wearing two gold bangles, which the department seized because they were of 24-carat purity. The department initiated proceedings, and the adjudicating authority ordered the absolute confiscation of the jewellery, along with a penalty. Aggrieved by such action, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the appellate authority, permitting the release of the jewellery on payment of the redemption fine and duty, while sustaining the penalty. The petitioner contended that the jewellery constituted used personal effects forming part of bona fide baggage and was entitled to duty-free clearance under the applicable rules, and that mere purity of gold could not be a ground for detention. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that jewellery worn by a passenger, such as basic gold bangles, would fall within the ambit of personal effects as contemplated under Rule 2(vi) read with Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, and could not be detained merely on the basis of its purity. It was observed that it is a normal practice for individuals to wear basic jewellery as part of their personal effects and the same would qualify for duty-free clearance when carried in bona fide baggage. The Court further held that the action of the department in ordering confiscation solely on the ground that the jewellery was of 24-carat gold was not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the confiscation and appellate orders were set aside and directions were issued for release of the jewellery upon compliance with applicable warehousing charges.
List of Cases Cited
- Manan Karan Sharma v. Commissioner — (2025) 31 Centax 380 (Del.) — Referred [Para 8]
- Amit Kumar v. Commissioner — (2025) 28 Centax 134 (Del.) = 2025 (392) E.L.T. 429 (Del.) — Relied on [Paras 11, 12]
- Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner — (2025) 32 Centax 50 (Del.) = 2025 (394) E.L.T. 391 (Del.) — Relied on [Paras 11, 12, 19]
- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani — 2017 (353) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 16]
- Saba Simran v. Union of India — (2025) 27 Centax 34 (Del.) = 2025 (394) E.L.T. 403 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 17]
- Union of India v. Saba Simran — (2025) 32 Centax 132 (S.C.) = 2025 (394) E.L.T. 27 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 18]
