The Delhi High Court this week called for a review of the Baggage Rules, 2016, following concerns over the confiscation of gold jewellery from air passengers. [Qamar Jahan v. Union of India represented by Ministry of Finance].The Court in its order highlighted the challenges faced by passengers carrying jewellery beyond permissible limits under outdated rules. A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba Singh and Dharmesh Sharma said,“The Court is of the view that the Baggage Rules may also require a re-look, considering the market rate of gold at present, where forty grams of gold would be costing much more the value cap of Rs. 1,00,000/- prescribed under Rule 5 of Baggage Rules. With the maximum limit of Rs.1,00,000/-, the gold that could be purchased may only be around 15 grams.”.The Court also found that Customs officials possess arbitrary powers that could be used to harass genuine passengers..Thus, the Chairman of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) was urged to:ensure that there is no harassment of genuine tourists and travellers, whether Indian or foreigners into India; ensure that illegal smuggling of gold is properly curbed..Before the High Court, the petitioner contested the decision of the Joint Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which had upheld the confiscation of his two gold kadas and a gold chain. A fine of ₹75,000 and a personal penalty of ₹1,10,000 were imposed on the petitioner under the Customs Act, 1962.During an earlier hearing, the Court directed Customs officials familiar with rules concerning the seizure of jewellery to be present for clarifications. On January 13, the Customs representatives cited the Baggage Rules, 2016, which exclude jewellery from the definition of "personal effects." According to Rule 5, male passengers returning from abroad after a year can carry up to 20 grams of jewellery worth ₹50,000, while female passengers can carry up to 40 grams worth ₹1,00,000, free of duty..However, the Court raised several concerns, especially with respect to the rules being outdated and the arbitrary powers the Customs officials possess for search and seizure. The order said, “The values of gold that would be permissible under the Baggage Rules would also have to be re-looked by the CBIC as the same appears to be completely not in tune with the current market value of gold.”.While agreeing that illegal smuggling of gold is to be curbed, the Court said that the rules cannot be used to harass genuine travellers. “While, there is no doubt that any illegal smuggling of gold deserves to be curbed, at the same time, bona-fidely and genuine tourists/travellers …. could be travelling for social engagements in India or social events such as marriages etc., with gold, which could be of a much higher value than the permissible limits. Such tourists and travellers ought not to be expected to file detailed declarations, which could make the entire process of entering India and exiting from airports extremely unfriendly or onerous.”.The CBIC has been instructed to file a report by March 27, 2025, detailing its proposed changes to the Rules..The petitioner was represented by Advocate Ashish Panday.The Union of India was represented by Advocates Jagdish Chandra and Shubham Kumar Mishra.The CBIC was represented by Senior Standing Counsel Shubham Tyagi.The Customs department was represented by Senior Standing Counsel Harpreet Singh, along with Advocates Suhani Mathur and Shivang Chawla..[Read order]
The Delhi High Court this week called for a review of the Baggage Rules, 2016, following concerns over the confiscation of gold jewellery from air passengers. [Qamar Jahan v. Union of India represented by Ministry of Finance].The Court in its order highlighted the challenges faced by passengers carrying jewellery beyond permissible limits under outdated rules. A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba Singh and Dharmesh Sharma said,“The Court is of the view that the Baggage Rules may also require a re-look, considering the market rate of gold at present, where forty grams of gold would be costing much more the value cap of Rs. 1,00,000/- prescribed under Rule 5 of Baggage Rules. With the maximum limit of Rs.1,00,000/-, the gold that could be purchased may only be around 15 grams.”.The Court also found that Customs officials possess arbitrary powers that could be used to harass genuine passengers..Thus, the Chairman of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) was urged to:ensure that there is no harassment of genuine tourists and travellers, whether Indian or foreigners into India; ensure that illegal smuggling of gold is properly curbed..Before the High Court, the petitioner contested the decision of the Joint Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which had upheld the confiscation of his two gold kadas and a gold chain. A fine of ₹75,000 and a personal penalty of ₹1,10,000 were imposed on the petitioner under the Customs Act, 1962.During an earlier hearing, the Court directed Customs officials familiar with rules concerning the seizure of jewellery to be present for clarifications. On January 13, the Customs representatives cited the Baggage Rules, 2016, which exclude jewellery from the definition of "personal effects." According to Rule 5, male passengers returning from abroad after a year can carry up to 20 grams of jewellery worth ₹50,000, while female passengers can carry up to 40 grams worth ₹1,00,000, free of duty..However, the Court raised several concerns, especially with respect to the rules being outdated and the arbitrary powers the Customs officials possess for search and seizure. The order said, “The values of gold that would be permissible under the Baggage Rules would also have to be re-looked by the CBIC as the same appears to be completely not in tune with the current market value of gold.”.While agreeing that illegal smuggling of gold is to be curbed, the Court said that the rules cannot be used to harass genuine travellers. “While, there is no doubt that any illegal smuggling of gold deserves to be curbed, at the same time, bona-fidely and genuine tourists/travellers …. could be travelling for social engagements in India or social events such as marriages etc., with gold, which could be of a much higher value than the permissible limits. Such tourists and travellers ought not to be expected to file detailed declarations, which could make the entire process of entering India and exiting from airports extremely unfriendly or onerous.”.The CBIC has been instructed to file a report by March 27, 2025, detailing its proposed changes to the Rules..The petitioner was represented by Advocate Ashish Panday.The Union of India was represented by Advocates Jagdish Chandra and Shubham Kumar Mishra.The CBIC was represented by Senior Standing Counsel Shubham Tyagi.The Customs department was represented by Senior Standing Counsel Harpreet Singh, along with Advocates Suhani Mathur and Shivang Chawla..[Read order]
