Wife’s to get back her seized 998 purity gold jewellery as Delhi High Court held purity of gold has no relation with Baggage Rules, 2016

The Delhi High Court recently provided relief to a woman (Mrs. Shamina) whose four gold bangles (jewellery), weighing 100 grams in total, were seized by customs officers at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. She claimed that she is an Indian citizen, who had gone to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to meet her husband and was wearing the said four gold bangles which formed part of her personal jewellery.

When she arrived at New Delhi international airport, she didn’t declare the gold bangles because they were her personal jewellery. She claimed that she is an eligible passenger under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and those confiscated gold bangles are her own jewellery.

An extract of the customs department order issued against her read: “i) I deny the ‘Free Allowance’, if any, admissible to the Pax Shamina for not declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted her and recovered the detained goods from her. I declare the passenger Shamina as an “ineligible Passenger” for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017- Customs dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended)…”

The customs department also contended that the gold items she refers to as personal jewellery can’t be classified as such, given that their purity is 998 (99.8% pure) i.e. 24 karat. Apart from confiscating her gold jewellery items, the customs department also imposed a penalty of Rs 1 lakh under section 112 (a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on her.

For those unfamiliar, in India, personal gold jewellery is typically made from 22 karat (91.6% pure) gold or lower Because of this, the import of gold with a purity exceeding 99.5% is restricted in India for jewellery purposes. Gold of this higher purity is generally imported for commercial purposes.

When the matter reached Delhi High Court, the judge said that the purity of gold used in making the jewellery is irrelevant when determining if the jewellery can be considered as a passenger’s personal effects or not.

The Delhi High Court said: “The weight of four gold bangles collectively is 100 grams which means that each bangle weighs 25 grams. On the aspect of personal effects and jewellery, the Adjudicating Authority has merely held that because of the purity, the same cannot be considered as personal jewellery as it is prohibited goods. This is contrary to the settled law.”

Ultimately Shamina won the case in Delhi High Court after fighting for about an year. Keep reading to find out more about the rules for carrying gold jewellery and how she won the case in Delhi High Court.

When did this case start?

According to the order of Delhi High Court dated July 23, 2025, here’s the timeline of events:

• March 19, 2024: A woman returned to Delhi after visiting her husband who is working in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Her four gold bangles were seized by customs officers as she did not fill in the appropriate customs declaration form.
• October 9, 2024: She argued that the confiscated gold jewellery items were her personal jewellery but the officials did not listen. An order-in-original was issued by which absolute confiscation of the four gold bangles was made operative. The customs department also imposed a penalty of Rs 1 lakh.

Also read: Air passenger wins Rs 2.74 lakh compensation for loss of personal luggage in check-in bag but only after 6 years legal battle

What did the Delhi High Court say?

Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta of Delhi High Court said:

• The Court has considered the matter. It is to be noted that no personal hearing has been granted to the Petitioner in the present case. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the Adjudicating Authority holds that the Petitioner is an ineligible passenger and has relied under Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 to hold that the cap which has been fixed under the said rule is much lower and the value of the gold which the Petitioner was carrying is higher.
• Further, the Adjudicating Authority (customs department) records that these are four gold bangles with average purity of 998 and therefore, it is not in the nature of jewellery.
• The weight of four gold bangles collectively is 100 grams which means that each bangle weighs 25 grams. On the aspect of personal effects and jewellery, the Adjudicating Authority has merely held that because of the purity, the same cannot be considered as personal jewellery as it is prohibited goods. This is contrary to the settled law.

Here is the Judgement

“In view of the above settled law, absolute confiscation of the four gold bangles without even permitting payment of any duty, redemption fine or penalty seems to be an extreme measure taken by the Adjudicating Authority. Moreover, personal hearing cannot be waived as per the settled law. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The detained gold bangles are directed to be released to the Petitioner within four weeks subject to the payment of warehousing charges. The warehousing charges shall be payable in terms of applicable charges on the date of detention.”

ET Online

Infographic

Also read: Passenger wins Rs 2 lakh as airline lost check-in bag containing his wife’s gold jewellery; Know how he won

What is the significance of this case?

ET Wealth Online reached out to various lawyers about the significance of this judgement. Here’s what they said:

Ashish Kothari, Partner, Kochhar & Co., says: The Customs had stopped the Petitioner on two grounds –

• The Petitioner (wife) could not be allowed clearance free of duty since the value of the gold which the Petitioner was carrying was much higher than the cap which has been fixed under Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, 2016.
• The purity of the gold bangles was 998 (i.e. 99.8%) and, therefore, cannot be treated as “personal jewellery”. While no explanation for this argument was provided in the Order passed by the Customs Department or the Delhi High Court, it is possible that the basis of the said argument was that jewellery is mostly manufactured using 22 or lower karats (91.6% or lower purity Gold). Further import of gold of a purity higher than 99.5% is restricted in India and gold of such purity is usually imported for commercial purposes.

“The judgment passed by the Delhi High Court reaffirms the settled position of law that it is not permissible to completely exclude jewellery from the ambit of ‘personal effects’. The Court has also rejected the argument taken by the Customs that the bangles in question cannot be treated as personal effects in view of the purity of gold (99.8%), thereby, clarifying the position that purity of gold used in the making of the jewellery has no relevance for determining whether the jewellery can be treated as “personal effects” or not.”

“The judgment further emphasizes upon the importance of adherence to principles of natural justice and declares that the Customs Department cannot confiscate personal jewellery without giving a fair hearing to the traveller.”

Also read: Divorce case: Wife’s WhatsApp chats can be valid evidence about her extramarital affair, even when obtained without her consent, rules Madhya Pradesh High Court

Suman Kamani, Partner, ALMT Legal, says: This decision is significant because it reinforces and clarifies the legal position that:

• Customs officials must distinguish between personal jewellery (used, bona fide, worn or carried for personal use) and jewellery in general for purposes of the Baggage Rules, 2016.
• High purity (e.g. 24 karat) or high value alone does not automatically disqualify jewellery from being treated as “personal effects” .
• The court applied Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017) and Saba Simran (2024) (cases), holding that bona fide personal jewellery is not liable to confiscation if carried for personal use
• Absolute confiscation without giving an option for redemption, fine, penalty or payment of duty is an extreme measure and unwarranted in bona fide personal jewellery cases.
• Personal hearing and issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) in confiscation proceedings cannot be waived or denied.
• This judgment strengthens travellers’ protection against arbitrary seizure of personal gold jewellery. Customs officers must consider whether jewellery is personal, used, and bona fide rather than relying solely on purity or value thresholds.

Zahir Tapia, Associate, ALMT Legal, says: The bangles were confiscated because the Customs Adjudicating Authority concluded that:

• The Petitioner did not declare the four gold bangles at the Red Channel or to the Customs Officer at the Green Channel, which was treated as a violation of the Baggage Rules, 2016 and Customs Act, 1962.
• The Petitioner was declared an “ineligible passenger” under Notification No. 50/2017 – Customs read with the Baggage Rules, 2016.
• The total value of the bangles exceeded the monetary limit in Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules.
• The bangles had an average purity of 998 (24 karat) due to which the authority held that they were “prohibited goods.”
• The Customs Adjudicating Authority treated the items as undeclared, high-purity gold exceeding the baggage allowance and therefore liable to absolute confiscation.
• As observed by the Delhi High Court, the Customs Adjudicating Authority noted the purity and value of the bangles and concluded that such purity meant the bangles were prohibited goods and could not be considered “personal jewellery,” contrary to settled law. Therefore, the Delhi High Court set aside the confiscation order and issued directions for the release of the bangles to the Petitioner.

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}