9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to decision of Customs authorities and Joint Secretary regarding re-export of Gold Karas. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the decision of Customs authorities and the Joint Secretary regarding the re-export of two Gold Karas weighing 110 grams, valued at Rs. 20,900. The petitioner arrived at the I.G.I. Airport from abroad carrying the Gold Karas without declaring them. Customs authorities intercepted her at the exit gate, and upon recovery of the Gold Karas, they were confiscated, and a penalty of Rs. 1500 was imposed. An appeal was filed contending that the impugned orders were contrary to the Tourist Baggage Rules. The Appellate Authority found the Gold articles to be strips of Gold without any design or finishing, not considered as jewellery. The Government of India upheld this decision, denying re-export. The petitioner argued that personal jewellery can be brought into India by tourists under Rule 3 of the Tourist Baggage Rules, 1978, for temporary import and subsequent re-export. The petitioner relied on Rule 7, emphasizing the requirement for a list of imported articles of high value to be given to the passenger on arrival. It was contended that no such list was provided to the petitioner, and as personal jewellery, the Gold Karas should have been allowed for re-export. The Court interpreted Rule 7, stating that it is the responsibility of the tourist to declare and give an undertaking for articles of high value intended for re-export. Even if no list is provided by Customs authorities, the tourist must fulfill this obligation. In this case, the failure to provide a list prevented the Gold Karas from being cleared for export upon the tourist's departure. The Court emphasized that re-export cannot be claimed as a right, especially if there is evidence of attempting to smuggle goods into the country. Genuine personal jewellery is permitted for import and subsequent re-export, but intentional smuggling or violation of laws can lead to confiscation. The Court referenced a previous case where re-export was allowed for Gold bangles worn by a tourist's wife, but distinguished it from the present case where deliberate concealment of Gold Karas indicated an attempt to smuggle. The petitioner's British citizenship did not exempt her from compliance with Indian laws, and the entry of half of the jewellery in her passport did not legitimize the unreported Gold Karas. The Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the decision of Customs authorities to confiscate the Gold Karas.
|
