NRI's Entitled To Benefits Provided To 'Eligible Passengers' Under 2016 Baggage Rules: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a non-resident Indian is fully entitled to the benefit provided to an “eligible passenger” under the Baggage Rules, 2016 for the purposes of Customs on arrival to India.Eligible passenger was defined by the Finance Ministry via a Notification dated June 30, 2017, to mean a passenger of Indian origin or a passenger holding a valid Indian passport, coming...
The Delhi High Court has held that a non-resident Indian is fully entitled to the benefit provided to an “eligible passenger” under the Baggage Rules, 2016 for the purposes of Customs on arrival to India.
Eligible passenger was defined by the Finance Ministry via a Notification dated June 30, 2017, to mean a passenger of Indian origin or a passenger holding a valid Indian passport, coming to India after not less than six months of stay abroad.
Baggage Rules allow duty-free clearance of certain items, including used household articles, professional equipment, and personal effects to eligible passengers.
In the case at hand, the Petitioner had arrived at Delhi airport from UAE wearing a gold chain weighing 28 grams, which came to be confiscated by the Customs authorities while he was crossing the green channel.
Petitioner claimed that the said jewellery was worn by him for his personal use.
At the outset, the High Court observed that “The Petitioner being a non-resident is fully entitled to the benefit provided to an eligible passenger under the Baggage Rules, 2016” which includes exemption of personal effects.
It thus set aside the impugned order which had imposed a fine and penalty on the Petitioner. It observed,
“The goods constitute personal effects of the Petitioner and could not have been seized in the manner the Custom authorities have.”
In this regard, the Court cited Farida Aliyeva v. Commissioner Of Customs (2024) whereby the personal jewellery seized from a tourist who was travelling from Azerbaijan to India was ordered to be released.
The Court also lamented that the impugned order was passed without issuing any show cause notice or affording personal hearing to the Petitioner. It referred to Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs (2025) where a coordinate bench has held that waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing obtained on a Standard Performa, would be contrary to law.
As such, the petition was allowed.
Appearance: Mrs. Kavitha KT, Mr. Subash Chandran, Mr. Sharat Gopal, Mr. Syam Krishnan, Mr. Akash Awana, Ms. Pinal Pandagare and Mr. Sakti Chaurvedi, Advs. for Petitioner; Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. for Respondent
Case title: Amal Krishna v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2957/2025
