Case Details: Farida Aliyeva v. Commissioner of Customs (2025) 29 CENTAX 93 (DEL.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Amit Sharma, JJ.
- Shri Pramod Kant Saxena, Adv., for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a foreign national from Azerbaijan, challenged the seizure of her personal gold jewellery at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. She arrived in India as a tourist wearing 18-carat gold jewellery—specifically, a necklace and a bracelet weighing a total of 0.178 grams—which was detained by customs officials upon her arrival. The petitioner contended that the seized items constituted personal effects and should be exempt from confiscation under the Baggage Rules, 2016, particularly in terms of the proviso to Rule 3, which grants duty-free allowance for personal effects carried by tourists of foreign origin.
High Court Held
The High Court noted that the seized articles—being jewellery worn by the petitioner—clearly qualified as personal effects, and that Entry 5 of Annexure-I to the Baggage Rules excludes ‘gold or silver in any form other than ornaments’, thus reaffirming that ornaments worn by a foreign tourist are not liable for seizure.
The Court held that the seizure was unwarranted and directed the Customs Department to release the detained jewellery within one week, upon personal appearance of the petitioner. However, it was clarified that the petitioner would not be allowed to sell the jewellery in India and must carry it back to her country of origin. Consequently, the detention receipt was quashed and the petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.
List of Cases Cited
- Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner — (2024) 22 Centax 272 (Del.) — Applied [Paras 5, 8]
