A UAE resident is preparing to take legal action after Indian customs officials at Kochi’s Nedumbassery airport seized his newly purchased iPhone 18 Pro and demanded duty payment. The incident occurred on October 23 when Ajas Mohammed, an entrepreneur and founder of the Kerala-based Eduport app, arrived at the airport with the device, bought in Dubai the previous day.
According to Ajas, customs officers questioned the value of the unopened iPhone and insisted that he pay import duty because the phone’s value exceeded Rs75,000 (approximately Dh2,890). Although he was also carrying an older iPhone 14 for personal use, officials did not exempt the newer phone from duty. Ajas refused to pay, describing the demand as unjust, and staged a peaceful sit-in protest at the airport that lasted several hours. Authorities eventually removed him forcibly in the early hours of October 24, and customs filed a case against him for allegedly interfering with their duties.
Following the incident, Ajas attempted to retrieve the phone on October 30 but was unsuccessful. He now plans to file a case with the Kerala High Court and is considering a Public Interest Litigation aimed at clarifying the perceived ambiguities in customs regulations regarding personal electronic devices. “Someone should raise their voice,” Ajas said, emphasizing his intention to address what he views as unclear legal standards rather than seeking public attention. A video of his protest went viral, drawing over 4.7 million views and eliciting support from Indian expatriates, some of whom offered financial and legal help, which he declined.
Legal experts familiar with Indian customs law explained the nuances behind the seizure. Shabeel Ummer, a Dubai-based lawyer, noted that while personal electronic items typically qualify as duty-free personal effects, their exemption is not automatic, particularly when they are new and of high value. Hakkim Ottapalam, an advocate based in Sharjah, said the examining customs officer has discretion to assess the value, condition, quantity, and intended use of goods under the Customs Act, 1962, including Section 81.
Both lawyers agreed that current laws do not differentiate between new and used items regarding personal effects and there is no explicit cap on the number of phones a passenger may carry. However, Hakkim highlighted that customs officials might seek supporting evidence to verify the intended personal use, such as usage records or account information. Multiple new or boxed devices could raise suspicion of commercial intent, which carries different duty implications.
While the legal framework permits appeals against customs decisions via the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, both lawyers cautioned against drawing conclusions before a full legal examination of all facts. They emphasized that media reports alone do not constitute judicial findings on the matter’s legality.
Ajas’s case has spotlighted the ongoing challenges faced by travelers regarding the interpretation and implementation of customs laws on electronic devices. He advocates for clearer, more explicit regulations that would better define personal use limits and reduce uncertainty for ordinary passengers.