Gold Seized from Riyadh Returnee Constitutes Personal Effects, Not Liable to Confiscation: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to release gold jewellery of 998 purity confiscated from a woman returning from Riyadh, observing that the items were part of her personal effects and not liable for absolute confiscation.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, in its order, said, “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.”

The court was hearing a plea filed by Shamina, seeking the release of four gold bangles that were detained by the Customs Department at IGI Airport, Delhi. She also sought quashing of the order by which the bangles were absolutely confiscated under various provisions of the Customs Act, and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 had been imposed.

Shamina, an Indian citizen, had gone to Riyadh to meet her husband, who was working there, and was wearing the four gold bangles as part of her personal jewellery. Upon her arrival at IGI Airport, the petitioner did not declare that the said bangles were her personal jewellery.

After the detention of the bangles, a detention receipt dated 19th March 2024 was issued. Subsequently, her lawyer appeared before the Customs Department and was handed a copy of the order. Another lawyer engaged by the petitioner had also visited the Customs Department and had waived the issuance of the Show Cause Notice.

It is the petitioner’s case that the four gold bangles were used jewellery and are liable to be released. It was also contended that no personal hearing was granted, and the waiver of the SCN is contrary to law.

However, the counsel for the Customs Department submitted that the advocate engaged by the petitioner had herself waived the SCN and personal hearing, and had in fact received the oral SCN. Therefore, there is no illegality in the procedure followed.

The Adjudicating Authority held that the petitioner was an ineligible passenger and relied on Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 to state that the cap fixed under the said rule was much lower than the value of the gold the petitioner was carrying. Further, the authority recorded that the four gold bangles had an average purity of 998 and therefore were not in the nature of jewellery.

The court referred to its judgment in Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors., wherein 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.

Setting aside the impugned order, the court directed that the detained gold bangles be released to the petitioner within four weeks, subject to the payment of warehousing charges.

Recently, the high court asked the Customs Department to release gold jewellery seized from a Muslim woman at Indira Gandhi International Airport while she was returning from a religious pilgrimage to Mecca.

The court had said, "It is normal practice and part of our culture, at least in our country, that women wear basic jewellery such as bangles as part of their personal effects. The same could not have been detained by the Customs Department only on the basis that they were of 24-carat gold, unless any other special circumstances exist for such detention."

Case Title: Shamina v. Commissioner of Customs

Date of Order: 23rd July, 2025

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta