https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771810 Delhi HC ruled in favor of petitioners seeking release of detained gold jewellery, holding that used jewellery worn by passengers constitutes "personal effects" under Baggage Rules, 2016 and is exempt from customs detention. The court relied on SC precedent in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani and Madras HC decision in Thanushika v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, establishing that worn jewellery falls within personal effects exemption. Despite petitioners being Singapore residents, the court found the Rules applicable and directed release of jewellery within four weeks, setting aside the original customs order. en-us Wed, 21 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 May 2025 09:21:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771810 Delhi HC ruled in favor of petitioners seeking release of detained gold jewellery, holding that used jewellery worn by passengers constitutes "personal effects" under Baggage Rules, 2016 and is exempt from customs detention. The court relied on SC precedent in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani and Madras HC decision in Thanushika v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, establishing that worn jewellery falls within personal effects exemption. Despite petitioners being Singapore residents, the court found the Rules applicable and directed release of jewellery within four weeks, setting aside the original customs order. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 21 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771810