Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the rights of non-resident Indians (NRIs) under the Baggage Rules, 2016, concerning customs duties on personal effects. The case, Amal Krishna v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 2957/2025), arose when the petitioner, an NRI arriving from the UAE, had his 28-gram gold chain confiscated by customs officials at Delhi airport while crossing the green channel. The customs authorities imposed a fine and penalty on him, alleging a violation of customs regulations. However, the petitioner argued that the gold chain was his personal jewellery, worn on his person, and thus should be exempt from confiscation under the Baggage Rules, 2016. The court, citing relevant precedents and legal provisions, set aside the customs order, declaring the seizure illegal and reaffirming that an NRI is entitled to duty-free benefits as an eligible passenger under the Baggage Rules.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that he was an NRI who had been residing abroad for more than six months and, therefore, fell within the definition of an “eligible passenger” as per the Ministry of Finance’s Notification dated June 30, 2017. This notification defined an eligible passenger as a person of Indian origin or one holding a valid Indian passport who arrives in India after a stay of at least six months abroad. Under the Baggage Rules, 2016, eligible passengers are permitted duty-free clearance of personal effects, including household articles and professional equipment. The petitioner argued that the gold chain he was wearing constituted personal effects and was not a commercial good or an undeclared valuable item. He further submitted that the customs authorities had acted in an arbitrary and unlawful manner by confiscating his jewellery without proper justification.

The petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Farida Aliyeva v. Commissioner of Customs (2024), where it was held that personal jewellery worn by a tourist from Azerbaijan was not subject to customs duty and was ordered to be released. Additionally, he referred to Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs (2025), where a coordinate bench ruled that a waiver of show-cause notice and personal hearing, obtained on a standard proforma, was contrary to law. The petitioner claimed that he had not been issued a proper show-cause notice nor granted a personal hearing before the customs authorities passed the impugned order.

Arguments of the Respondents (Customs Authorities):

The customs department defended its actions, stating that all arriving passengers are subject to baggage screening and that customs officers are authorized to seize undeclared gold if it exceeds the prescribed limit. The respondents argued that gold jewellery above the duty-free allowance should have been declared at the red channel, and failure to do so warranted confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. They maintained that the petitioner had crossed the green channel, thereby misrepresenting the nature of his possessions and evading customs duty.

The respondents further contended that the petitioner’s reliance on past judgments was misplaced, as each case must be examined based on specific facts. They asserted that the rules concerning personal effects do not automatically exempt all jewellery items from customs duty. According to them, customs officials have the discretion to determine whether an item qualifies as a personal effect or a dutiable good. They also justified the penalty imposed, arguing that the petitioner should have explicitly declared the gold chain upon arrival.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully considering the submissions from both parties, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The court observed that the petitioner met the criteria of an “eligible passenger” under the Baggage Rules, 2016, which entitled him to duty-free benefits. It emphasized that the gold chain worn by the petitioner fell within the definition of personal effects and, therefore, should not have been seized. The court reiterated that customs officials had no authority to confiscate goods that were legally exempt from duty.

The court also took note of procedural lapses by the customs authorities. It found that the petitioner had been denied a proper show-cause notice and personal hearing before the order of confiscation and penalty was passed. The bench cited the ruling in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs (2025), where it was held that obtaining a waiver of procedural rights through a standard proforma was legally impermissible. The court, therefore, declared the customs order invalid on both substantive and procedural grounds.

Additionally, the court referenced Farida Aliyeva v. Commissioner of Customs (2024) to underscore that personal jewellery worn by a passenger should not be subjected to customs duties unless there is a clear intention to import it for commercial purposes. The court found that the customs department had failed to establish that the petitioner was importing gold for trade rather than personal use. As such, the confiscation was deemed arbitrary and unlawful.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order, directing the customs authorities to return the confiscated jewellery to the petitioner. It reaffirmed the principle that NRIs are fully entitled to the benefits of the Baggage Rules, 2016, and cannot be unfairly penalized for carrying personal effects. The ruling serves as a significant precedent in ensuring the rights of returning NRIs under Indian customs regulations.