PERSONAL JEWELLERY UNDER BAGGAGE RULES /CUSTOMS LAW – JUDICIAL PROTECTION AND THE REDUNDANCY OF WAREHOUSING CHARGES By G. Jayaprakash Advocate

1. Introduction

The moment a customs officer on duty notices a woman passenger wearing gold ornaments in person she will be put to harassment by way of personal search and confiscation of gold ornaments if the purity is 24 carats etc. The Delhi High Court’s recent judgment in Shamina Versus Commissioner Of Customs - 2025 (8) TMI 658 - DELHI HIGH COURT is a timely reaffirmation of passenger rights under the Baggage Rules, 2016. It protects travellers from arbitrary confiscation of bona fide personal jewellery and underscores the importance of procedural fairness.

However, the Court’s incidental direction to release the detained gold bangles subject to payment of warehousing charges appears inconsistent with Parliament’s own deletion of Customs’ power to levy such charges. This paper analyses both aspects — the substantive protection for personal jewellery and the statutory elimination of warehousing rent/demurrage from Customs law.

2. Factual Background

• The Passenger: Shamina, an Indian citizen, travelled to Riyadh to meet her husband and returned wearing four gold bangles (100 grams in total, 998 purity).
• Detention: On arrival at IGI Airport, Customs detained the bangles, alleging non-declaration at the red channel, and passed an Order-in-Original ordering absolute confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(i),111(j),111(m) of the Customs Act, with a Rs.1 lakh penalty under Section 112.
• Adjudicating Authority’s Reasoning: She was declared an “ineligible passenger” under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., and the bangles were held to be “prohibited goods” due to their purity, not qualifying as personal jewellery.
• Procedural Concerns: No personal hearing was granted; an alleged waiver of show cause notice (SCN) was taken through counsel.

3. Key Legal Issues

1. Whether bona fide personal jewellery can be confiscated merely due to purity, weight, or value.
2. Whether waiver of SCN and personal hearing was valid.
3. Whether warehousing charges are payable for detention by Customs after Parliament’s amendments.

4. Judicial Findings on Personal Jewellery

The Delhi High Court drew from a consistent line of precedents:

• Supreme Court – Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Versus Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani - 2017 (8) TMI 684 - Supreme Court: Jewellery worn or carried by a tourist for personal use qualifies as “personal effects”; its value or newness is irrelevant; no concealment and hence no smuggling.
• Delhi High Court – Saba Simran v. UOI, affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 11281/2025: Distinction between “jewellery” and “personal jewellery” must be maintained; used personal jewellery is not hit by the monetary caps in Rules 3 & 4 of the 2016 Rules.
• Delhi High Court – Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs (2025) 32 Centax 50 (Del.)): Customs must differentiate between generic “jewellery” and bona fide personal ornaments in use

Court’s conclusion: The adjudicating authority erred in rejecting the “personal jewellery” claim solely on purity grounds. Absolute confiscation without offering redemption fine or duty payment was an extreme measure. Denial of a personal hearing further vitiated the order.

5. The Warehousing Charges Question

It was brought before the general public through a paper immediately after the amendment by Finance Act, 2022 and in a case of redemption of seized gold as per order of Revisional authority, the Thiruvananthapuram Air Customs refused to accept the direction of the Parliament and collected amount as rent.

In para 14 of the judgment, the Court ordered release of the bangles “subject to payment of warehousing charges.” This directive raises legal concerns because:

5.1 Parliamentary Amendments

• Section 63, Customs Act, 1962 (rent/demurrage from warehouse) was amended by the Finance Act, 2022, removing Customs’ authority to levy warehousing rent.
• Section 45(2)(b) was amended earlier to prohibit Customs from recovering rent/demurrage for goods in its custody.
• Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, Regulation 6(1)(l), as amended, bars custodians from charging demurrage for periods attributable to Customs detention.

5.2 CBIC Instructions

• Circular No. 04/2018-Cus., dated 12.01.2018 and later clarifications direct that no demurrage/rent is payable for periods of seizure/detention by Customs.
• If goods are kept with an independent custodian (AAI, CFS, ICD), storage charges may apply only for periods not covered by Customs detention immunity.

5.3 Judicial Recognition

In Sunil Kumar Kedia v. UOI (2023), the Delhi High Court reiterated that importers/passengers cannot be burdened with storage costs arising solely from Customs’ unjustified actions.

6. Harmonising the Two Aspects

While Shamina advances the jurisprudence on personal jewellery, the warehousing charge direction is inconsistent with the post-amendment Customs Act. For goods detained unjustifiably:

• No warehousing charges can be levied by Customs.
• Custodian’s charges, if any, for the Customs-attributable period are also barred by law and CBIC regulations.

Therefore, a correct application of law would have been to order release without any warehousing charges for the detention period.

7. Implications

1. For Passengers: Confirms right to carry bona fide personal ornaments without fear of arbitrary confiscation; reinforces procedural safeguards.
2. For Customs: Requires careful distinction between smuggling and personal use; ensures compliance with amended warehousing provisions.
3. For Policy: Highlights the need for judicial awareness of recent legislative changes when granting relief.

8. Conclusion

The Shamina ruling can be boasted as a progressive step in passenger protection under the Baggage Rules, 2016, if the ratio is being followed by the Officers at the baggage hall. However, the warehousing charge condition is a legal relic — Parliament has already removed Customs’ power to levy such charges, and CBIC’s own instructions prohibit them for periods attributable to Customs action.

The case thus illustrates both the strength of judicial protection in substantive customs law and the importance of aligning procedural relief with the current statutory framework.