9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 486 - HC - CustomsDoctrine of ultra vires - gold bangles worn by the petitioner upon returning to India fall under the definition of baggage as per the Customs Act 1962 and the Baggage Rules 2016 or not - interpretation of the provision as carried on the person of the Baggage Rules 2016 - HELD THAT - While enacting the provisions of the Customs Act the Parliament has consciously excluded the jewels worn by the passengers. If there is any intention to put all the passengers into hassle disrespecting their proprietorial rights dignity forgoing the customs against the fundamental rights let the Parliament take a decision and amend the provisions of the Act. Till then the Officers have to apply their minds with regard to detaining the passenger and the gold worn by them as the same would not fall within the purview of the Baggage Rules 2016. The Doctrine of ultra vires states that the Rule making body must function within the purview of the Rule making authority conferred on it by the parent Act. As the body of making rules or regulations there is no inherent power of its own to make rules but such power arise only from the Statute and hence it must necessarily function within the purview of the Statute - In the present case the Rule making body had made the Baggage Rules as if they are having inherent power of its own to make rules beyond the scope of the Statutes and they have incorporated the word carried on the person . In the present case admittedly the Rule making Authorities made the Rules by traveling beyond the scope of the Act which would amount to ultra vires. In such case the Statute would prevails over the Rules. When such being the case the Statute referred only with regard to the baggage and therefore the Rule has to be confined and read only with regard to the baggage and not with regard to the articles carried on the person . In the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered in Naresh Chandra Agarwal vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and others 2024 (2) TMI 493 - SUPREME COURT it has been held that (a) The doctrine of ultra vires envisages that a Rule making body must function within the purview of the Rule making authority conferred on it by the parent Act. As the body making Rules or Regulations has no inherent power of its own to make rules but derives such power only from the statute it must necessarily function within the purview of the statute. Delegated legislation should not travel beyond the purview of the parent Act. (b) Ultra vires may arise in several ways; there may be simple excess of power over what is conferred by the parent Act; delegated legislation may be inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act; there may be noncompliance with the procedural requirement as laid down in the parent Act. It is the function of the courts to keep all authorities within the confines of the law by supplying the doctrine of ultra vires. In the above cases the Court had held that a Rule Making Authority has to make the Rules within the scope of the parent Act and no Rules shall exceed beyond the scope of the parent Act since it would amount to ultra vires. Thus in the present case the Baggage Rule 2016 will apply only to the baggage and the Rule made to the extent that the article carried on the person will not include baggage which was in excess of powers conferred by the Rule making Authority and would amount to ultra vires. Therefore the jewellery worn in person will not come under the purview of baggage - In the case on hand the 10 nos. of bangles were admittedly worn by the petitioner and on the request of respondents it was handed over to them. Normally in our country any person will worn this quantity of gold for a marriage and hence in such case it appears to be just and reasonable. All these aspects have to be taken into consideration by the respondents. However since the Baggage Rule 2016 includes the articles carried on the person the Officials had treated the same as baggage and hence this Court does find any fault on the Officials also. Conclusion - Since this Court has held that the provision as carried on the person of the Baggage Rules 2016 is ultra vires the detention of gold under the Baggage Rules 2016 in the present case would not apply unless and otherwise if it is secreted in person for which the proceedings shall be initiated under Section 101 of the Customs Act 1962 however that is not the case of the respondent. The petitioner worn the 10 nos. of bangles in her hands and thus there is no secrecy or concealment. Thus the detention of petitioner s 10 nos. of bangles is neither proper nor in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to dispose of the petitioner s representation dated 08.02.2024 and release the goods within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order - petition allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Definition and Scope of "Baggage"
Ultra Vires Nature of the Baggage Rules, 2016
Lawfulness of the Detention
SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
|
