Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The Delhi High Court, through Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, addressed a petition seeking release of two gold chains (199 grams) detained by Customs. The Petitioner, an Uzbekistan national, undertook to re-export the jewellery, which he claimed were personal effects. The Customs Department had not issued any Show Cause Notice (SCN) or passed any order, despite the detention occurring over a year prior. Relying on settled precedents-including *Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani*, (2017) 16 SCC 93, *Saba Simran v. Union of India*, 2024:DHC:9155-DB, and *Mr Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs*, 2025:DHC:1162-DB-the Court held that "used jewellery worn by the passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects in terms of the Baggage Rules," exempting such items from detention. Further, the Court emphasized the mandatory procedural requirement under Section 110 of the Customs Act that a SCN must be issued within six months (extendable by six months) once goods are detained. Since no SCN was issued even after one year, the detention was held to be impermissible. Accordingly, the Court directed release of the gold chains for re-export, subject to verification and payment of storage charges. The Petitioner may collect the items personally or through an authorized representative upon proper communication. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.