9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gage Rules, 1998 read with Appendix E (2), the respondent was not carrying any dutiable goods because the goods were the bona fide jewellery of the respondent for her personal use and was intended to be taken out of India. Also, with regard to the proximity of purchase of jewellery, all the jewellery was not purchased a few days before the departure of the respondent from UK, a large number of items had been in use for a long period. It did not make any difference whether the jewellery is new or used. There is also no relevance of the argument that since all the jewellery is to be taken out of India, it was, therefore, deliberately brought to India for taking it to Singapore. Foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them and it is a pre-requisite at the time of making endorsements on the passport. Therefore, bringing jewellery into India for taking it out with the passenger is permissible and is not liable to any import duty. Also, from the present facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be inferred that the jewellery was meant for import into India on the basis of return ticket wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vered from two hand bags. On the very same day, the respondent was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody and she remained there till 26.11.2002. (b) On 12.12.2002, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent by the then Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, asking her to show-cause as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated under the Act. On 14.08.2003, the competent authority, passed a detailed order confiscating absolutely the new articles valued at ₹ 86,52,765/-, confiscation of seized jewellery worth ₹ 40,47,235/- with redemption clause on payment of fine of ₹ 3,00,000/- and penalty to the tune of ₹ 15,00,000/-. Vide order dated 27.09.2004, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, found the respondent guilty under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone and imposed a fine of ₹ 6 lakhs. (c) Being aggrieved by the show-cause notice dated 12.12.2002 and order dated 14.08.2003, the respondent herein filed Writ Petition (C) No. 6633 of 2003 before the High Court of Delhi. The Divisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for smuggling the same. In fact, on return of the seized jewellery, the respondent herein directly went back to London instead of Indonesia, contrary to the assertion made before the High Court in the Writ Petition, which was held to be a ground in her favour for ascertaining her 'intention' before the High Court. Learned Solicitor General finally contended that the conduct of the respondent after release of the goods had misled the court and the judgment of the High Court on the pretext of personal effects is liable to be set aside. 6) Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules 1998, a tourist arriving in India shall be allowed clearance free of duty, articles in his bona fide baggage to the extent mentioned in Column (2) Appendix-E which indicates "used personal effects" for personal use of the tourist in India which, if not consumed, could be re-exported when the tourist leaves India for a foreign destination. Hence, the charge that the respondent did not make any declaration under Section 77 of the Act is not correct as the respondent was not carrying any dutiable/prohibited items and the jewellery she was carrying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 04.09.2009 dismissed the review petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.09.2006. 8) In the above backdrop, it is relevant to quote certain provisions of the Baggage Rules, 1998 as well as the Circulars dated 24.09.1998 and 18.02.2000 issued by the Ministry of Finance which are as under:- Definitions.- "2. (iii) "tourist" means a person not normally resident in India, who enters India for a stay of not more than six months in the course of any twelve months period for legitimate non-immigrant purposes, such as touring, recreation, sports, health, family reasons, study, religious pilgrimage or business; 7. Tourists.-A tourist arriving in India shall be allowed clearance free of duty articles in his bona fide baggage to the extent mentioned in column (2) of Appendix E. Appendix E 1 2 Articles allowed free of duty a xxxx xxxxx b Tourists of foreign origin other than those of Nepalese origin coming from Nepal or of Bhutanese origin coming from Bhutan or Pakistani origin coming from Pakistan i Used personal effects and travel souvenirs, if a These goods, are for personal use of the tourist and b These goods, other than those consumed during the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board of Excise & Customs New Delhi, the 18th Feb, 2000 Subject: Baggage Rules-Tourist baggage-no endorsement of imports of personal effects on tourists' passports 1. xxxxx 2. xxxxx 3. It may kindly be ensured that all genuine tourists are allowed to bring in their personal effects without endorsement on the passports and without payment of duty, subject to the terms and conditions prescribed in the Baggage rules, 1998." (emphasis supplied by us) 9) Insofar as the question of violation of the provisions of the Act is concerned, we are of the opinion that the respondent herein did not violate the provisions of Section 77 of the Act since the necessary declaration was made by the respondent while passing through the Green Channel. Such declarations are deemed to be implicit and devised with a view to facilitate expeditious and smooth clearance of the passenger. Further, as per the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Kyoto 18.05.1973), a passenger going through the green channel is itself a declaration that he has no dutiable or prohibited articles. Further, a harmonious reading of Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules, 1998 read w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the appellant-DRI. In fact, the respondent had travelled to London to attend a doctor's appointment with her daughter who was unwell at the relevant time. Further, there is no restriction in UK law which prohibits a person claiming VAT in London from re-importing the items on which VAT has been claimed at a later date. Also, from the present facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be inferred that the jewellery was meant for import into India on the basis of return ticket which was found to be in the possession of the respondent. Moreover, we cannot ignore the contention of the respondent that her parents at the relevant time were in Indonesia and she had plans of proceeding to Indonesia. Some of the jewellery items purchased by the respondent were for her personal use and some were intended to be left with her parents in Indonesia. The High Court has rightly held that when she brought jewellery of a huge amount into the country, the respondent did not seem to have the intention to smuggle the jewellery into India and to sell it off. Even on the examination of the jewellery for costing purposes, it has come out to be of ₹ 25 lakhs and not ₹ 1.27 crores a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
