Delhi HC Orders Release of Gold Bangles Seized at Airport; Says Personal Jewellery Can’t Be Detained
Delhi HC Orders Release of Gold Bangles Seized at Airport; Says Personal Jewellery Can’t Be Detained
The present writ petition (W.P.(C) 9269/2025) is being filed by a woman named Mubina (petitioner) against the Commission of Customs (respondent) in the Delhi High Court, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, requesting the court to release the two gold bangles weighing 117 grams (‘detained jewellery’), seized by the Customs Department via Detention Receipt dated 20th September, 2023.
The dispute arose when Mubina arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi from Jeddah after completing Umrah on September 20, 2023. She walked through the Green Channel. The customs officers, when searching, found baggage and found her wearing two gold bangles weighing 117 grams, which they seized. The gold was later evaluated in the presence of her lawyer and valued at Rs. 694,715.58.
The customs department issued an Order-in-Original dated January 18, 2024, to the woman and did not even provide any personal hearing or issue any SCN before issuing the final order, which is against natural justice and illegal as per the law. The order stated that Mubina did not declare the jewellery and was not eligible for any free baggage allowance under the rules. The department immediately confiscated the jewellery and imposed a penalty of Rs. 70,000 under the Customs Act.
Mubina disagreed with the order and challenged the order in the Delhi High Court. On May 26, 2025, the Commissioner passed an Order-in-Appeal, allowing the release of the jewellery to Mubina, but only on payment of Rs. 70,000 as a redemption fine, and the customs duty and the penalty of Rs. 70,000 were upheld. This was only a partial relief, and Mubina still had to pay to get her jewellery back.
Mubin argued in the High Court that the gold bangles were her personal effects, not meant for trade. Therefore, they should not have been seized. Petitioner’s lawyer also referred to a previous judgment titled Manan Karan Sharma v. Commissioner of Customs, related to a similar situation, where the court ruled in favour of a passenger. The Department of Customs said that as Mubina had accepted the penalty and redemption fine in the appeal, the matter should end there.
When the high court analysed both arguments, it acknowledged that women often wear jewellery such as bangles as part of their regular attire, especially after religious pilgrimages like Umrah. Just because the bangles were made of 24-carat gold does not automatically make them smuggling material unless clear reasons exist.
Further ruled that under Section 124 of the Customs Act, before goods are confiscated, the Customs must issue a written show cause notice (SCN), allow the petitioner to respond in writing, and give a personal hearing. Customs claimed Mubina had waived her rights by signing a preprinted form. However, the court rejected this argument of the department, saying such standardised, pre-printed waivers are invalid and do not fulfil the legal requirement. Courts have already ruled in similar cases, such as Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs, that these waivers are against natural justice.
According to Section 110 of the Act, Customs has 6 months to issue a show cause notice after detaining goods, extendable by another 6 months. Here, more than a year had passed, and no show-cause notice was issued, making the detention completely illegal.
The Baggage Rules allow Indian women returning from abroad to bring gold jewellery worth up to Rs. 1 lakh (40 grams) duty-free. Even if rules do not explicitly include jewellery in “personal effects,” courts have said that used jewellery worn personally can be part of personal effects. The Supreme Court and Delhi High Court (in cases such as Pushpa Tolani and Saba Simran) have made it clear that used personal jewellery worn by passengers cannot be seized.
In its final order, the court ordered that the seizure of the bangles was illegal because no valid show-cause notice or personal hearing was given, and time limits under the law were not followed. The jewellery was used, personal jewellery. Therefore, the detention was cancelled. Mubina’s jewellery must be returned within two weeks (by 22 July 2025). She can collect it herself or send an authorised representative with her written/email consent. She must pay the warehouse storage charges. If she paid any pre-deposit during her appeal, it will be adjusted against the warehouse charges. Both the earlier confiscation order and the appellate order are now set aside.