Case Details: Anjali Pandey Versus Union of India-(2025) 27 Centax 32 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pratibha M. Singh & Dharmesh Sharma, JJ.
- Shri D.S. Chadha, Adv., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Anurag Ojha, Senior Standing Counsel with Subham Kumar, Vipul Kumar & Dipak Raj, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a Thai national, arrived in India carrying three gold bangles as part of her personal effects. Upon arrival, customs authorities detained the jewellery under the Baggage Rules, 2016, despite no legal requirement for prior declaration. The detention receipt lacked her contact details, and no show cause notice was issued, highlighting procedural lapses. Contending that the seizure was arbitrary and lacked statutory backing, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that the seizure was unjustified, affirming that personal jewellery worn by a tourist qualifies as personal effects and is not dutiable. It directed the immediate release of the jewellery or, if disposed of, payment of its market value with 8% annual interest. The Court also mandated procedural reforms, including recording traveller contact details in detention receipts and attaching photographic evidence of seized items. Additionally, it instructed CBIC to reassess the Baggage Rules to prevent undue hardship to genuine travellers while ensuring strict enforcement against illicit activities.
List of Cases Cited
- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani — 2017 (353) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 6, 14]
- Farida Aliyeva v. Commissioner — 2024:DHC:9533-DB — Relied on [Para 17]
- Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner — (2024) 22 Centax 272 (Del.) — Relied on [Paras 7, 17, 18]
- Saba Simran v. Union of India — 2024:DHC:9155-DB — Relied on [Para 15]
