2024 (12) TMI 755 - HC - Customs

Challenge to seizure proceedings and detention receipt - smuggling of Gold - personal effects and personal jewellery - prohibited goods or not - HELD THAT - A perusal of the decision cited by the Petitioner i.e., NATHAN NARAYANSAMY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2023 (9) TMI 1549 - DELHI HIGH COURT would show that in a similar case, this Court has held that personal effects would be exempt especially if they are in the form of ornaments in case of a foreigner. Rule 5 of Baggage Rules, 2016 would not apply in terms of Proviso to Rule 3 of the said Rules. In the opinion of this Court, the present case would clearly be covered by the said judgment inasmuch as it is not controverted that the goods which have been detained are a necklace and bracelet weighing 0.178 gms. Under such circumstances, considering that this is 18 carat gold jewellery which was being worn by the tourist who was travelling from Azerbaijan to India, the same would not be liable to be seized and the detention receipt is accordingly quashed - let the personal gold jewellery be released to the Petitioner within a period of one week. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to seizure proceedings and detention receipt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for personal gold jewellery seized by Customs officials upon arrival at the airport.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an Azerbaijan national, arrived in India as a tourist and had 18 carat gold jewellery consisting of a necklace and a bracelet weighing 0.178 gms seized by Customs officials. The petitioner argued that her personal jewellery should not qualify for seizure under Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016. The petitioner sought the release of the goods and quashing of the detention receipt dated 4th November, 2024.

The petitioner relied on a previous decision by a Coordinate Bench of the Court in a similar case to argue that personal effects and jewellery should not be considered prohibited goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent submitted that the goods were with the Customs warehouse and could be released after appraisal and subject to further orders by the Department.

The Court examined the detention receipt and noted that the jewellery seized was described as gold jewellery weighing 0.178 gms, consisting of a necklace and a bracelet. The Court referred to the previous decision cited by the petitioner to establish that personal effects, especially ornaments, should be exempt from seizure for foreigners under the Baggage Rules, 2016.

The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Baggage Rules, specifically Rule 3 and the Proviso to Rule 3, which allows duty-free clearance of articles for tourists of foreign origin. It was concluded that the jewellery seized from the petitioner fell under the category of ornaments and should not have been seized under Clause 5 of Annexure-I of the Baggage Rules.

The Court further clarified that Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, which pertains to passengers returning to India after residing abroad for over a year, did not apply to the petitioner, a foreign national. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the seizure proceedings, and directed the return of the seized articles to the petitioner.

In light of the previous judgment and the specific circumstances of the case, the Court determined that the petitioner's 18 carat gold jewellery should not have been seized. The detention receipt was quashed, and the Court ordered the release of the personal gold jewellery to the petitioner within a week, with the petitioner instructed to personally visit the Customs warehouse for retrieval and not to sell the articles.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with all pending applications also being resolved.