Case Details: Laxmi Chauhan vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport and General (2025) 34 Centax 303 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathibha M. Singh & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
- S/Shri Anmol Agarwal & Puru, Advocates, for the Petitioner
- S/Shri Akash Verma, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Aanchal Uppal, Advocate, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a passenger arriving in India, was carrying gold jewellery gifted by their mother-in-law, consisting of one gold chain and two gold bangles weighing approximately 200 grams. Upon arrival, the Customs Department seized the jewellery, asserting potential contravention of baggage regulations. The petitioner submitted that the jewellery was being personally worn and carried and therefore constituted bona fide baggage. They contended that the items squarely fell within the ambit of ‘personal effects’ as provided under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and were exempt from detention. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the gold jewellery gifted by the petitioner’s mother-in-law and being worn by the petitioner fell within the ambit of ‘personal effects’ under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and was exempt from detention by the Customs Department. The Court noted that Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, in conjunction with Rule 2(vi) and Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, provides that goods of personal use carried by a passenger as bona fide baggage are not liable for seizure. Accordingly, the seized gold jewellery was ordered to be released.
list of Cases Cited
- Amit Kumar v. Commissioner — 2025 (392) E.L.T. 429 (Del.) = (2025) 28 Centax 134 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 16]
- Manan Karan Sharma v. Commissioner — (2025) 31 Centax 380 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 14]
