2023 (9) TMI 1200 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Gold Jewellery - baggage rules - non-application of mind - penalty in respect of the earlier travel by the petitioner in the year 2018 which is reflected under the impugned detention receipt - HELD THAT - Any normal women passenger ordinarily will wear jewels over her body. The 44 grams of jewellery seized from the petitioner and her daughter by the respondents cannot be treated as excessive. Therefore, erroneously on the ground that the petitioner is liable to pay the penalty in respect of her earlier travel in the year 2018, the impugned detention receipt dated 16-1-2023 has been issued. The penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/- in respect of the earlier travel by the petitioner in the year 2018 which is reflected under the impugned detention receipt dated 16-1-2023 is also the subject matter of a Statutory Appeal. This Court is of the considered view that by total non-application of mind to the fact that the petitioner and her daughter had worn over their bodies only jewellery weighing a meagre 44 grams which cannot be treated to be excessive, as any woman passenger would normally wear jewellery weighing that extent, the impugned detention receipt dated 16-1-2023 has been issued. Since the petitioner has admittedly not paid the penalty amount in respect of her earlier travel which is reflected in the impugned detention receipt dated 16-1-2023, the petitioner shall deposit the said amount with the third respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to detention receipt under Customs Act, 1962 for jewellery seized from passengers arriving from Bangkok, detention based on earlier penalty, excessive detention, quashing of detention receipt, directions for deposit and release of seized jewellery.

The judgment by the Madras High Court pertains to a challenge against a detention receipt issued under the Customs Act, 1962 for jewellery seized from passengers arriving from Bangkok. The petitioner, a passenger, had jewellery weighing 44 grams detained under the receipt due to an earlier penalty liability of Rs. 10,000 from a travel in 2018. The jewellery, 44 grams in total, was seized from both the petitioner and her daughter. The Baggage Rules state that passengers must pay customs duty only if the value of goods exceeds Rs. 50,000. The court noted that dividing the jewellery weight between the two passengers results in a meager quantity each, not warranting detention.

The detention receipt did not cite the jewellery as the reason for detention but referenced the earlier penalty. The court emphasized that 44 grams of jewellery worn by the passengers should not be considered excessive, as it is typical for women passengers to wear such items. The detention based on the earlier penalty, which is under statutory appeal, was deemed erroneous. The court criticized the lack of consideration for the minimal weight of the jewellery and the normalcy of such adornments worn by women, leading to the issuance of the detention receipt.

Consequently, the court quashed the impugned detention receipt dated 16-1-2023, citing the lack of application of mind in detaining the jewellery. The court directed the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount within a week, after which the seized jewellery should be returned. The judgment clarified that it pertains to the specific case at hand and should not be considered a precedent. No costs were awarded, and the related Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed, concluding the matter.