2025 (4) TMI 195 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of gold kada and two gold chains - imposition of redemption fine - no SCN issued to petitioner afte detention - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Prima facie this Court is of the view that tourists and travellers of this nature ought not to be subjected to harassment by the Customs Officials especially in respect of personal jewellery and personal effects. In Saba Simran v. Union of India Ors. 2024 (12) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT the Court decided the validity of the seizure of gold jewellery by the Customs Department from an Indian tourist. The Court considered the ambit of personal effects vis- -vis jewellery under the Baggage Rules in effect from time to time - The decision would lead to the conclusion that jewellery that is bona fide in personal use by the tourist would not be excluded from the ambit of personal effects as defined under the Rule 2(vi) of the Baggage Rules 2016. A perusal of the above Rules would show that the Customs Department is required to make a distinction between jewellery and personal jewellery while considering seizure of items for being in violation of the Baggage Rules 2016 - In the present case the invitation card of the marriage which the Petitioner was intending to attend has also been placed on record. Thus the bringing of the jewellery is clearly bona fide. The weight of the gold in this case is just 85 grams and they are personal jewellery of the Petitioner. In view thereof following the reasoning given in Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union of India 2025 (3) TMI 754 - DELHI HIGH COURT the Order-in-Original is set aside. The items shall be released to the Petitioner subject to payment of storage charges with the condition that the items shall be reexported. Petition disposed off.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the gold jewellery carried by the Petitioner qualifies as "personal effects" under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and is thus exempt from confiscation.
• Whether the Customs Department's actions in confiscating the jewellery without issuing a show cause notice or granting a personal hearing were legally justified.
• Whether the imposition of a fine and penalty for the redemption of confiscated goods was appropriate in the circumstances.
• Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the release of the confiscated items based on the bona fide nature of their use.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework primarily revolves around the Baggage Rules, 2016, specifically Rule 2(vi), which defines "personal effects" and excludes jewellery from this definition. The judgment in Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors. was pivotal, where the Court interpreted the term "personal effects" and distinguished between "jewellery" and "personal jewellery." The Customs Act, 1962, particularly Section 125(3), which deals with the redemption of confiscated goods, also plays a crucial role.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court emphasized the necessity to distinguish between "jewellery" and "personal jewellery" as per the Baggage Rules and the clarificatory Circular issued by the Customs Department. The Court noted that "personal jewellery" not acquired during an overseas trip and used regularly by the passenger should not be excluded from "personal effects." This interpretation aligns with the reasoning in Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors., where the Court underscored the importance of recognizing bona fide personal use of jewellery.

Key Evidence and Findings

The Petitioner provided evidence, including an invitation card to the marriage he intended to attend, which supported his claim of bona fide use of the jewellery. The weight of the gold, totaling 85 grams, was also noted as minimal and indicative of personal use rather than commercial intent.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court applied the Baggage Rules, 2016, and the principles from Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors. to conclude that the jewellery in question was indeed "personal jewellery" and should not have been confiscated under the pretext of violating the Baggage Rules. The absence of a show cause notice and personal hearing further weakened the Respondent's position.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Respondent argued that the Order-in-Original had been passed, suggesting that the Petitioner should seek legal remedies. However, the Court found the confiscation and subsequent imposition of fines and penalties unjustified, given the circumstances and the legal framework.

Conclusions

The Court concluded that the jewellery was bona fide personal effects and should not have been confiscated. The Order-in-Original was set aside, and the items were ordered to be released to the Petitioner, subject to payment of storage charges and the condition of reexport.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning

The Court emphasized: "A perusal of the above decision would lead to the conclusion that jewellery that is bona fide in personal use by the tourist would not be excluded from the ambit of personal effects as defined under the Rule 2(vi) of the Baggage Rules, 2016."

Core principles established

The judgment reinforced the principle that "personal jewellery" used regularly and not acquired during an overseas trip should be considered "personal effects" under the Baggage Rules, 2016. The necessity for Customs officials to distinguish between "jewellery" and "personal jewellery" was underscored.

Final determinations on each issue

• The jewellery in question was deemed "personal jewellery" and not subject to confiscation under the Baggage Rules, 2016.
• The lack of a show cause notice and personal hearing rendered the Customs Department's actions procedurally flawed.
• The Order-in-Original was set aside, and the jewellery was ordered to be released to the Petitioner, subject to specific conditions.