https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771838 Delhi HC ruled in favor of a Thai national seeking release of seized gold jewellery. The court held that used jewellery worn by passengers constitutes "personal effects" under Baggage Rules, 2016, and is exempt from customs detention. Citing SC precedent in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani and Madras HC decision in Thanushika v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, the court established that worn jewellery falls within personal effects exemption. The court ordered customs department to pay realized amount to petitioner with 6% statutory interest from disposal date, with payment deadline of July 15, 2025. en-us Wed, 21 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 May 2025 08:47:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771838 Delhi HC ruled in favor of a Thai national seeking release of seized gold jewellery. The court held that used jewellery worn by passengers constitutes "personal effects" under Baggage Rules, 2016, and is exempt from customs detention. Citing SC precedent in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani and Madras HC decision in Thanushika v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, the court established that worn jewellery falls within personal effects exemption. The court ordered customs department to pay realized amount to petitioner with 6% statutory interest from disposal date, with payment deadline of July 15, 2025. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 21 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771838