Fiverose Abdul Majeed Bathurudeen Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Summary: Madras High Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by Fiverose Abdul Majeed Bathurudeen and her minor daughter challenging detention of gold jewellery by Customs at Trichy Airport. The petitioners, who held Indian passports and residential visas in Saudi Arabia, arrived in India from Saudi Arabia on 4 July 2026 and were intercepted for carrying jewellery exceeding the quantity permissible under the Baggage Rules, 2026. Customs detained 22.20 grams of jewellery valued at Rs.2,89,081 belonging to the mother and 30.50 grams valued at Rs.3,97,161 belonging to the minor child.
The petitioners contended that they had travelled to India to attend a marriage function in Tenkasi District and that the jewellery constituted their personal jewellery. According to them, it was neither intended to be smuggled into India nor sold after import. They further submitted that they proposed to return to Saudi Arabia the following week and wished to take the detained jewellery back with them.
Justice C. Saravanan permitted the petitioners to submit a suitable representation/application before the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Air Customs, Trichy Airport. The Court directed the Customs authority to adjudicate the application for return of the jewellery seized from the respective petitioners on 4 July 2026.
The High Court further observed that, considering that there was no question of the jewellery being sold in India and that it was intended to be taken back to Saudi Arabia, a minor penalty could be imposed for the infraction of the Customs Act and the Rules made thereunder, after obtaining the petitioners’ consent. The Court stated that such action could operate as a deterrent against future attempts to violate the law.
With these observations, both writ petitions were disposed of without any order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned detention orders of the second respondent in Detention Receipt Nos.518/2026 and 517/2026, both dated 04.07.2026, ordering the detention of the gold jewellery weighing 22.20 Grams and valued at Rs. 2,89,081/- and weighing 30.50 Grams and valued at Rs.3,97,161/-, respectively, seized from the respective petitioners.
2. The petitioners are the mother and minor child, who came to India on 04.07.2026 from Saudi Arabia. They are holding residential visas in Saudi Arabia and also holding Indian Passports. Both had carried on their person jewellery in excess of the quantity permissible under the Indian Customs Baggage Rules, 2026. They were intercepted and the jewellery was seized from their person.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they had visited India in connection with a marriage function that was held on 12.07.2026 in Tenkasi District and that the jewels carried by them were not intended either to be smuggled into India or to be sold after being smuggled. It is submitted that they are the personal jewels of the respective petitioners, i.e., the mother and the minor child.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they propose to take back the jewellery to Saudi Arabia when they travel to Saudi Arabia next week and therefore, submits that they be allowed to take back the jewellery.
5. Considering the above, I permit the petitioners to submit a suitable representation/application to the second respondent, who shall adjudicate the same for the return of the jewellery that was seized from the respective petitioners on 04.07.2026.
6. Considering the fact that there is no question of the jewellery being sold in India and that it is intended to be taken back to Saudi Arabia by them, a minor penalty may be imposed on them for the infraction of the Customs Act and the Rules made thereunder, after obtaining their consent, so that the same action can act as a deterrent against the petitioners from attempting to violate the law in future.
7. With the above observations, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
