Disposed

Ganga Gopal v. Commissioner of Customs

Delhi HC21 Apr 2025W.P.(C)/4938/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Customs detained a Qatar-resident passenger's diamond necklace bought for his son's wedding. Holding it a personal effect under the Baggage Rules, the Court directed its release within one week for re-export, with storage charges to be paid by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Customs to release the detained diamond necklace to the petitioner for re-export within one week after verifying credentials; petitioner to pay storage charges.

Ganga Gopal Vs Commissioner of Customs — Customs and Excise | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4938/2025 & CM APPL. 22670/2025

¶4

GANGA GOPAL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶9

O R D E R % 21.04.2025

¶10

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

CM APPL. 22670/2025 (exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 4938/2025

¶13

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Ganga Gopal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondent- Commissioner of Customs to release the personal jewellery i.e. diamond necklace detained by the Respondent vide Detention Receipt No. 40475 dated 3^rd April 2025 (hereinafter, ‘ detention receipt ’).

¶14

The case of the Petitioner is that he is a resident of Doha, Qatar and he had travelled to India for the wedding of his son. The Petitioner had purchased a diamond necklace for the said wedding and the invoice in respect thereof

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/04/2025 at 12:01:07

¶17

has also been placed on record. The same was detained by the Customs Department on 03^rd April, 2025 upon issuance of a detention receipt, when he had travelled to India on the ground that customs duty would be liable to be paid on the said necklace.

¶18

The Petitioner being a foreign resident and considering the fact that it was only one piece of jewellery which was being carried for a wedding, it would clearly constitute a personal effect . The Petitioner is also willing to reexport the said diamond necklace. 6. Considering the decisions in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, (2017) 16 SCC 93 passed by the Supreme Court as also the decisions of this Court in Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs, [W.P.(C) 6855/2023, decided on 15^th September, 2023], Farida Aliyeva v. Commissioner of Customs, [W.P.(C) 16113/2024, decided on 10^th December, 2024] , Mohammad Zaid Salim v. The Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), [W.P.(C) 2595/2019, decided on 4^th September, 2023] , the Court has clearly held that the personal jewellery, which is owned by the passenger, would not be liable to be confiscated and detained.

¶19

Further, in Mr Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2025:DHC-1162-DB this Court has discussed various issues arising in several cases where the goods have been detained from a tourist by the Customs Department, including the issue of personal jewellery being part of personal effects under the Baggage Rules, 2016 (hereinafter, ‘ Baggage Rules ’). The relevant extract of the order dated 19th February, 2025 in Makhinder Chopra (supra) is as under:

¶20

“17. A conspectus of the above decisions and

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/04/2025 at 12:01:07

¶23

provisions would lead to the conclusion that jewellery that is bona fide in personal use by the tourist would not be excluded from the ambit of personal effects as defined under the Baggage Rules. Further, the Department is required to make a distinction between ‘jewellery’ and ‘personal jewellery’ while considering seizure of items for being in violation of the Baggage Rules.”

¶24

In view of the above discussion, the detained diamond necklace of the Petitioner would constitute a personal effect under the Baggage Rules.

¶25

Accordingly, the Customs Department is directed to release the diamond necklace to the Petitioner for the purposes of re-export within one week.

¶26

The Petitioner or his authorised representative shall approach the Customs Department in the Warehouse at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and after verifying the credentials, the release shall be given.

¶27

The storage charges shall be paid by the Petitioner.

¶28

The petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶29

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶30

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

¶31

APRIL 21, 2025/ PB/ck

¶32

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/04/2025 at 12:01:07

Ganga Gopal v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Gopal v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Axor Gold Trading Fze Vs Commissioner of Customs

Nizam Uddin Khan Vs Principal Resident Commissioner of Ut of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.

Yogesh Jain Prop. Harsh Industries Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Cbdt) & Ors.

Umesh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ankit Gulliya Vs Reserve Bank of India & Ors.

Dr Sanjay Wadhawan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Manihamsa Power Projects Ltd. Vs M/S Shree Suryachandra Synergetics India

Gyan Prakash Dev Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Others

M/S Axor Gold Trading Fze Vs Commissioner of Customs

Shivnandan Kumar Bajaj Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)

Techno Canada Inc. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gsr Infocom Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goods and Services Tax Officer Ward 103 Delhi & Ors.

Shri Atul Aggarwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.