2020 (1) TMI 325 - HC - Customs

Import of of Baggage - clubbing of free allowance of other family member - benefit of the total duty free baggage allowance - case of petitioner is that since the total value of the spare parts was less than the sum total of the baggage allowance permissible for all the passengers, the items imported were within the permissible limits of bona fide baggage exempted from duty for the purposes of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Baggage Rules, 1998 - Revenue is of the view that spare parts being items for commercial use, would not be entitled for baggage benefits. HELD THAT - There are force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the duty free baggage allowance that is permitted under the Rules to a passenger cannot be clubbed with the duty free allowance permitted to another passenger even if he/she falls within the definition of the family of the first passenger - It is relevant to note in the instant case that the baggage in which the spare parts in question were carried, was declared in the name of the petitioner. The baggage in question had therefore to be seen as the baggage of the petitioner as an individual passenger. While it would have been open to the petitioner to claim a duty free clearance in respect of the various articles/spare parts had they been invoiced to, and included in the baggage of, the other passengers who were individual members of his family and in whose names the baggages were registered, perhaps he could have claimed the benefit of duty free allowance as applicable to each of those passengers. In the instant case, however, the items in question were contained in the baggage of the petitioner, and the invoices in respect of the spare parts showed the petitioner as the person to whom the spare parts were sold. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the petitioner could not have contended for a pooling of the baggage allowance permitted in respect of his wife and children to enhance the limit of duty free baggage allowance that was admissible to him in his capacity as a passenger under the Baggage Rules. As regards the finding of the learned single Judge that the items of spare parts constituted bona fide baggage, we find that the spare parts in question were intended for use in a vehicle imported by the petitioner earlier and put to personal use of the petitioner - Under the said circumstances, and in view of the fact that the items of spare parts were not excluded for carriage in baggage under Appendix I of the Baggage Rules, the finding of the learned single Judge that the said items of spare parts constituted bona fide baggage is upheld. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Baggage Rules and Customs Act regarding duty free baggage allowance.
2. Whether spare parts imported by the petitioner constituted bona fide baggage.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Baggage Rules and Customs Act regarding duty free baggage allowance

The Writ Appeal involved a dispute regarding the duty free baggage allowance under the Customs Act and Baggage Rules. The petitioner, along with family members, imported spare parts for a car. The petitioner claimed duty exemption based on the total baggage allowance applicable to all family members. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Air Customs rejected this claim, leading to the petitioner paying duty on the excess value of the spare parts. The appellate and revision authorities upheld this decision, resulting in a writ petition. The learned single Judge favored the petitioner's argument, emphasizing the inclusive definition of family under the Baggage Rules to support pooling of baggage allowance. The Judge also ruled that the spare parts qualified as bona fide baggage. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioner was granted a refund.

In the Appeal, the appellants contended that the family definition in the Baggage Rules merely identified eligible family members for duty free clearance. They argued that duty free allowance should not be combined across family members, as each passenger's allowance is individual. The Court, after considering the submissions and relevant laws, agreed with the appellant's counsel. It noted that the spare parts were in the petitioner's baggage, making them his individual responsibility. The Court clarified that the duty free allowance cannot be pooled across family members to enhance an individual's limit. Hence, the finding of the single Judge on this issue was set aside.

Issue 2: Whether spare parts imported by the petitioner constituted bona fide baggage

The Court also addressed whether the spare parts imported by the petitioner qualified as bona fide baggage. The spare parts were intended for use in a vehicle previously imported by the petitioner for personal use. As the spare parts were not excluded under the Baggage Rules, the Court upheld the single Judge's finding that the spare parts constituted bona fide baggage. Consequently, the Writ Appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the pooling of baggage allowance across family members but maintained the finding regarding the bona fide nature of the baggage. The petitioner was relieved from any fine or penalty due to an erroneous interpretation of the Baggage Rules.

In conclusion, the Writ Appeal was disposed of with the above determinations, providing clarity on duty free baggage allowance interpretation and confirming the spare parts as bona fide baggage for the petitioner.