10 Landmark Court Rulings That Led to the Introduction of the Baggage Rules, 2026 in Union Budget 2026-27
The notification of the Customs Baggage Rules, 2026, read with the Customs Act, 1962, as part of the Union Budget 2026, marks a significant and long-awaited reform in India’s customs law framework governing international travellers. The new rules replace the Baggage Rules, 2016 and seek to strike a careful balance between preventing smuggling and protecting genuine passengers from harassment at international airports.
This legislative reform is not coincidental. It is the direct consequence of judicial scrutiny by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, particularly in the case of Qamar Jahan v. Union of India, where the Court strongly questioned the arbitrary application of baggage laws, especially concerning gold jewellery carried as personal effects by bona fide travellers.
The list of cases has been prepared by Ashish Panday, Advocate, who is representing the petitioner in the lead matter before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Baggage Rules 2026 cases
1. Qamar Jahan Versus Union Of India, Represented By Secretary, Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
the Delhi High Court expressly asked the Customs authorities to review the Baggage Rules, 2016 and revisit the amount of gold or gold jewellery that can be carried by a person travelling to India by air.
2. Amit Kumar Versus The Commissioner Of Customs
The Delhi High Court has directed the release of goods detained without show cause notice (SCN) on the grounds that printed waiver of SCN cannot be considered to be an oral SCN but directed that the storage charges will be borne by traveller.
3. Sainath Srinivasan vs Union Of India & Ors W.P.(C) 1809/2025
Printed waiver of SCN and the printed statement made in the request for release of goods cannot be considered or deemed to be an oral SCN, in compliance with Section 124.
4. Ranvir Sra v. Commissioner of Customs
Orders Release of Seized Rolex Watch, Holds Watch as ‘Personal Effect’ Under Baggage Rules
5. Simran vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024)
The Delhi High Court in Saba Simran vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) held that ‘personal jewellery’ of a person coming to India, which is not found to have been acquired on an overseas trip and was always a used personal effect of the passenger, would not be subject to duty under the Baggage Rules.
6. Thanushika Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)
the Madras High Court ruled that Baggage Rule apply only to the baggage carried by an international traveller and the Rules cannot be extended to articles like jewellery, “carried on the person” of a traveller.
7. Rajendra S. Bajaj Versus The Union of India (2024)
In Rajendra S. Bajaj Versus The Union of India (2024), the Bombay High Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the Customs for seizing the gold chain and gold pendant embedded with 12 diamonds from a US national, after observing that he was a high-income person and could afford to possess such expensive jewllery for ‘personal use’.
8. Mubina v. Commissioner of Customs (2025)
Delhi High Court held that it is normal practice in India that women wear basic jewellery such as bangles as part of their personal effects. The same can’t be detained by the Customs Department only on the basis that the same were of 24 carat gold, unless any other special circumstances exist for such detention.
9. Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs W.P.(C) 2760/2025
Delhi High Court held that detention of goods by the Customs Department cannot continue beyond a period of one year, if a show cause notice was not issued to the assessee within such period. The Court cited Section 110 of the Customs Act which prescribes a period of six months and a further extension of six months for the Department to issue a show cause notice.
Also Read: Gold Smuggling Cases in India: An Overview of Laws and Procedures
