Recently, in a decision reiterating the protection afforded to bona fide personal effects under the Baggage Rules, 2016, the Delhi High Court directed the release of a gold chain detained by customs officials nearly seven years ago, finding the prolonged inaction of the department unjustified and the seizure impermissible under the law.
The case arose from a petition filed by Yash Chadha, who sought the release of a 45-gram gold chain seized by the Customs Department at the IGI Airport in July 2018. According to the petitioner, the chain, which he was wearing while returning from Bangkok, was detained without any subsequent appraisal or issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN). The Court noted that more than the statutory period of one year had elapsed since the seizure, without the customs authorities initiating any proceedings.
"Once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a SCN and afford a personal hearing to the Petitioner,” the Court observed, adding that the prescribed period under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 is six months, extendable by another six months under statutory conditions. “In this case, the one year period itself has elapsed, yet no SCN has been issued. Accordingly, the detention is impermissible", added the Bench.
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta examined the legal treatment of gold jewellery under the Baggage Rules. While Rule 2(vi) excludes “jewellery” from the definition of “personal effects,” the Bench relied on a consistent line of judicial authority distinguishing between newly acquired jewellery and items already in personal use.
While referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Ors. vs. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, the Court recalled that passengers passing through the green channel make an implied declaration that they are not carrying dutiable goods. The Apex court had categorically held that jewellery intended for personal use and to be taken out of the country is not subject to duty and stated, “Bringing jewellery into India for taking it out with the passenger is permissible and is not liable to any import duty.”
The Court also placed reliance on its recent Division Bench judgment in Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors., which clarified the interpretation of Rule 2(vi) in light of the Customs Department’s own circulars. In that case, it was held that “personal jewellery which is not found to have been acquired on an overseas trip and was always a used personal effect of the passenger would not be subject to the monetary prescriptions incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of the 2016 Rules.”
The Supreme Court's dismissal of the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors. confirmed the legal position that personal jewellery worn by a passenger qualifies as exempted personal effects under the Baggage Rules. Relying on this settled position, the Court held that the gold chain worn by Yash Chadha at the time of travel constituted his personal effect. It observed, “In view of the above and considering the facts of the case, it is clear that the detained jewellery are the personal effects of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the detained jewellery would be liable to be released.”
The Bench also directed the Customs Department to release the chain to the petitioner or his authorised representative upon proper intimation and communication. Additionally, the Court waived warehousing charges, noting that “for the last almost seven years, the Customs Department has not taken any action.”
Case Title: Yash Chadha Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Case No.: W.P.(C) 9469/2025
Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
Advocate for Petitioner: Advocates Parminder Singh Sandhu, Mayank Ahuja, Pradeep Chaurasia, and Abhishek Sharma
Advocate for Respondent: Advocate Arun Khatri
