GURLEENKAUR v. COMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS
Judgment
$~55*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+W.P.(C)18244/2025GURLEENKAUR.....PetitionerThrough:Ms.RicharKumari, Adv.versusCOMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS.....RespondentThrough:Mr.VishalChadha, Adv.CORAM:JUSTICEPRATHIBAM.SINGHJUSTICERENUBHATNAGARORDER%01.12.20251.Thishearinghasbeendonethroughhybridmode.2.ThePetitioner, interalia, seekscomplianceoftheOrder-in-Originaldated1stSeptember,2025bywhichthepersonalgoldjewelleryofthePetitionerhasbeenreleasedbytheAdjudicatingAuthority.3.Aperusalofthesaidorderwouldshowthatthegoldjewelleryseizedaretwogoldbanglesweighing60gramsandonegoldchainweighing33gramswhichthePetitionerhasclearlypurchasedinIndiaandhadtravelledwiththesametoDubaiforherdaughter’smarriage.4.ThesegolditemshavingbeenpurchasedinIndia, thereisnoillegalityinvolvedinthepresentcaseinasmuchasthesearepersonaleffectsofthePetitionerwhichsheisentitledtowearifsheistravellingabroad.5.TheOrder-in-Originalhas, therefore, directedreleaseofthegoldjewellery. Theparagraph9.4.5ofthesaidorderreadsasunder:“9.4.5Inviewoftheabovediscussionandprecedenceplacedonrecord, IfindthatthedetainedgoldjewelleryhasbeenclaimedtobepurchasedinIndiabythePax This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/12/2025 at 12:11:43 beforehervisitabroadforherdaughter'sweddingandshehasproducedcopyofthepurchaseinvoiceforthesame. ThePaxhasfurtherclaimedthatsincethedetainedjewellerywasnotpurchasedoverseas, buthasonlybeenbroughtbackaftervisitabroad, nocustomsdutycanbeimposedthereon. Therefore, thedetainedjewelleryisnotliableforconfiscationasthesameispersonaljewelleryofIndianoriginasitisestablishedthatthe'personaljewellery'isincludiblein"personaleffectsofthePax.9.5Ihavealreadydiscussedthefactsofthecaseandaccordingly. IfindthatthePaxhasnotcommittedanyact, noromittedtodoanyactshewaslegallyobligatedtodoandconsequentlycannotbeheldliableforpenalactionundersection112oftheCustomsAct,1962.9.6Atlast, IproceedtoexamineastowhetherthePaxiseligiblefor‘FreeAllowance’underBaggageRules,2016(asamended).Inthisregard, Iobservebatthe‘FreeAllowance’isallowedonlyonthebonafidebaggageasperRule3ofBaggageRules2016.Ifindthatthebenefitof‘FreeAllowance’isavailabletothePax, asdiscussedhereinabove.asbeinganIndiannationalvisitingabroad, thePaxhasneitherfailedinherlegalobligations, noromittedtoactinconsonanceofherduties. Thus, intheinstantcase, Iallow'FreeBaggageAllowance’tothePaxasisadmissibletotheIndiannationalsreturningfromvisitabroad.10.Inviewoftheforegoing. IpassthefollowingorderORDERi)Iallowthe‘FreeAllowance'asisadmissibletotheIndianPassengersforvisitaboardtothePaxMs.GurleenKaur, aswellii)Iorderreleaseoftheabovesaiddetainedgoods,i.e.,“1.Twogoldbangleshavingpuristy997,weighing60 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/12/2025 at 12:11:43 gmvaluedatRs.5,23,578/-2.Onegoldchamhavingpurity997weighing33gm, valuedatRs.2,87,968/-;totallyvaluedatRs.8,11,546/-fromthePaxMs.GurleenKauranddetainedvideDRNo.5814dt.10.03.2025asthesameisnotliableforconfiscationunderSection111oftheCustomsAct1962,withoutpaymentofCustoms/duty/fine/penalty, asitisestablishedthatthesaidgolditemsareofIndiaoriginandarepartofthe‘personaleffects’ofthePaxiii)IrefrainfromimposinganypenaltyonthePax, Ms.GurleenKaur, underSection112oftheCustomsAct1962holdingthatshewasundernolegalobligationtodeclarethedetainedgoodsunderSection77oftheAct, being‘personaleffects’ofIndianoriginbroughtbackbythePaxaftervisitaborad.”6.Ld.CounselforthePetitionerpraysforreleaseofthegoodsintermsoftheaboveorder.7.Mr.VishalChadda, ld. CounselfortheCustomsDepartmentsubmitsthattheextendedperiodoflimitationhasnotyetlapsedandtheDepartmentisintheprocessoffilingtheappeal.8.TheCourthasheardthepartiesandperusedtheOrder-in-Original. Inthefactsofthiscase, theOrder-in-Originaliscompletelylogicalandrational. Itisalsoareasonableviewwhichistakenbytheadjudicatingauthority. Moreover, thePetitionerbeinganIndiancitizenwhohaspurchasedthesegoldjewelleryinIndiacannotbeharassedinthismannerunnecessarilyifshehasmerelymadeatriptoDubaiforherdaughter’sweddingandhasreturnedbacktoIndia.9.Primafacie, thisCourtisoftheopinionthatthefindingintheOrder-in-OriginalgoesinfavourofthePetitionerandiftheDepartmentwishestochallengethesametheyoughttohavefiledtheappealintime. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/12/2025 at 12:11:43
#10. Inanyevent, thePetitionerbeingacitizenofIndiaandthesebeingpersonaleffectsthesameareliabletobereleasedbutonlyononeconditionthatthePetitionershallnotdisposeofthesegoodsforaperiodofsixmonthsandshallabidebytheorderoftheappellateforum, ifany.11.ThegoodsshallbereleasedtothePetitioneron23rdDecember,2025.Inthefactsofthiscase, nowarehousingchargesshallbeliabletobepaid.12.TheNodalOfficermentionedbelowshallfacilitatethePetitioner’sappearancebeforethecompetentauthorityforcompliancewiththepresentorder:Mr.MukeshGulia, Superintendent, LegalOfficeofCommissioner, CustomsIGIAirports,T-3,NewDelhiEmailid:[email protected].:999992247913.Thepetitionisdisposedofintheseterms. Pendingapplications, ifany, arealsodisposedof.PRATHIBAM.SINGH,J.RENUBHATNAGAR,J.DECEMBER1,2025dj/msh
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.