Legal principle

Where a passenger has succeeded up to Commissioner (Appeals), detained personal jewellery must be released with storage charges waived, but goods whose character is disputed must be produced before the Court before release, even as Rule 5 and Rule 2(vi) allowances are deferred pending amendment of the Baggage Rules, 2016.

Court decision

The Court granted CBIC a further six weeks to prepare and place draft amended Baggage Rules (to be filed at least two days before the next hearing), deferring interim directions on Rule 5 and Rule 2(vi). On the case facts, because there is a factual dispute over the nature of the jewellery, the Court directed that the detained goods be produced on the next date (8 September 2025) and, if satisfied they are the petitioner's personal jewellery, they shall be released in terms of the 19 May 2025 directions. The matter is part-heard; no final ruling was given for either side on the jewellery dispute.

Facts

Qamar Jahan, a writ petitioner before the Delhi High Court in a batch concerning Customs' detention of passengers' goods, had her gold items — two gold kadas and one gold chain — detained by the Customs Department. The Court had directed the Revision Authority to decide her matter within one month, but no decision was taken; on 19 May 2025 the Court ordered the gold released within four weeks and waived storage charges, since the petitioner had succeeded up to Commissioner (Appeals). The goods were still not released, and on 23 July 2025 the petitioner stated the detained goods are old personal jewellery, which the Customs Department disputed. The hearing also reviewed Customs' implementation of the court-approved SOP and CBIC's progress on amending the Baggage Rules, 2016.

Key provisions

• Rule 2(vi), Baggage Rules, 2016 — Definitions
• Rule 5, Baggage Rules, 2016 — Jwellery