Case Details: Makhinder Chopra Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (2025) 32 Centax 50 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Dharmesh Sharma, JJ.
- Shri D.S. Chadha, Adv., for the Petitioner.
- Shri Satish Aggarwala, SSC, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, before the High Court, was a passenger and a Russian resident for seventeen years, who arrived in India wearing a gold chain valued at approximately ₹7 lakhs. The gold jewellery was detained by customs authorities on the ground that it was imported as baggage. The petitioner submitted that the gold chain was part of personal effects and that the Baggage Rules, 2016 have limited application to foreign nationals. It was contended that such detention was not sustainable in law. The matter was accordingly placed before the Delhi High Court.
High Court Held
The Delhi High Court held that gold jewellery worn by a passenger who is a foreign national is part of personal effects, and that the Baggage Rules, 2016 have limited application to foreign nationals. Referring to Rule 2(vi) read with Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, the Court set aside the detention of the petitioner’s gold chain.
List of Cases Cited
- Amit Kumar v. Commissioner — 2025 (392) E.L.T. 429 (Del.) = (2025) 28 Centax 134 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 27]
- Anjali Pandey v. Union of India — 2025 (392) E.L.T. 322 (Del.) = (2025) 27 Centax 32 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 21]
- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani — 2017 (353) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 15]
- Farida Aliyeva v. Commissioner — (2025) 29 Centax 93 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 21]
- Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner — (2024) 22 Centax 272 (Del.) — Relied on [Paras 5, 20, 21]
- Qamar Jahan v. Union of India — 2025 (392) E.L.T. 331 (Del.) = (2025) 28 Centax 84 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 33]
- Saba Simran v. Union of India — (2025) 27 Centax 34 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 16]
- Thanushika v. Principal Commissioner — (2025) 29 Centax 7 (Mad.) — Relied on [Para 18]
