Top Stories Delhi HC directs Customs to Sensitize Officials on Detention of Personal Gold and Old Jewellery of Air Travellers [Read Order] The direction came in light of multiple instances of incoming air travellers facing apprehension and confiscation of their personal jewelry at Indian airports By Avinash Kurungot – On April 2, 2025 2:57 pm – 3 mins read
The Delhi High Court, while adjudicating a recent matter, directed the Customs Department to sensitize its officials and implement immediate measures to prevent the unlawful detention of personal gold and old jewellery carried by air travellers, both Indian and foreign. More than 30 petitions were filed by numerous entities being aggrieved by the procedure undertaken by the Customs Department for the detention of goods from citizens that were returning from foreign countries.
Read More: Jewellery of Iran National Confiscated by Customs Dept 3 Yrs Ago: Delhi HC directs to Release Goods The present petition, instituted by Qamar Jahan serves as the leading petition for the rest of the matters, which alleged that travellers were being harassed by Customs Officials under the pretext of assessing baggage declarations and were routinely seizing old and worn jewellery without any justifiable cause, leading to undue distress and procedural hurdles for travellers. The Petitioner, represented by Ashish Pandey, claimed that the Baggage Rules, 2016, being relied upon are more than nine years old and are not reflective of the upward trajectory of gold prices in the last several years.
New Criminal Laws, New Challenges! Are you ready? Click here Various decisions by the Delhi High Court including Anjali Pandey vs. Union of India (2025) where the Court had considered the position of personal jewellery under the Baggage Rules in case of foreign nationals and held that the detention receipt shall contain all the details of the tourist, and that coloured images of the seized goods shall be attached to the detention receipt and that the copy of the said images shall be duly provided to the concerned tourist and retained by the Department as well. Read More: “Personal Effects” u/s 2(vi) of Baggage Rules cannot exclude Personal Jewelry or Ornaments: Delhi HC Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC Shubham Tyagi, N.Ojha, P.Mahajan, Harpreet Singh, Suhani Mathur, Jai Ahuja and Ashay Saxena appeared on behalf of the Government while Mayusha Goyal, Maharishi Singhal, Nitin Raj, Sunil Kumar, Sandeep Lakra, Ravinder Singh, Rohit, Ajay Pratap, Avinash Yadav and Umesh Kumar from the Revenue were in attendance as well.
The primary contention raised by the customs was that any amendments to the Baggage Rules may only be undertaken after obtaining comments and inputs from all the stakeholders and some more time will be required for the same. The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ruled that while the Customs Act provides a legal framework for seizures, its implementation should not lead to undue hardship for innocent travellers. The court directed that, pending amendments to the Baggage Rules, the Customs Department must adhere to an SOP ensuring due process and fairness in detentions.
New Criminal Laws, New Challenges! Are you ready? Click here Furthermore, it mandated that notices regarding personal hearings must be issued through multiple communication channels, including email and WhatsApp, to prevent procedural lapses and ensure timely recourse for passengers. With regards to foreign passport holders or foreign residence permit holders, the Delhi High Court ruled that no personal effects including jewellery shall be detained, so long as the same are declared in the ‘Red Channel’ and the said travellers undertake to re-export the same.
The court further instructed the CBIC and Customs Department to implement sensitization initiatives to educate officials on the distinction between personal jewellery and commercial gold imports while demanding that a compliance report on the directives be submitted before the next hearing; alternatively if the Baggage Rules cannot be amended by the next date of hearing, a Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter “SOP”) shall be placed on record by then