https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771872 Delhi HC held that gold jewellery worn by passengers constitutes "personal effects" under Baggage Rules, 2016, citing SC precedent in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani that jewellery cannot be completely excluded from personal effects. Following Madras HC decision in Thanushika v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, court distinguished between baggage rules and articles "carried on person." HC directed release of detained jewellery to petitioner within four weeks without warehouse charges, disposing of petition favorably. en-us Mon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 May 2025 08:47:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771872 Delhi HC held that gold jewellery worn by passengers constitutes "personal effects" under Baggage Rules, 2016, citing SC precedent in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani that jewellery cannot be completely excluded from personal effects. Following Madras HC decision in Thanushika v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, court distinguished between baggage rules and articles "carried on person." HC directed release of detained jewellery to petitioner within four weeks without warehouse charges, disposing of petition favorably. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771872