9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the Petitioner was asked to take them off and the said bangles were seized. A detention receipt was issued on the same date i.e., 13th March, 2024. 4. According to the Petitioner, the said gold bangles were part of the jewellery which she was wearing in the usual course and there was nothing special in the same. The Petitioner's three gold bangles weighed about 113 Kgs valued at about Rs. 7,42,410/- as per the detention receipt. After the gold bangles were seized, no show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner till date. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking return of the said gold bangles. 5. On 30th August, 2024, the Court had issued notice to the Respondents in this writ petition and a counter affidavit was sought. Submissions of the Parties 6. The Petitioner has filed written submissions and has relied upon various decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, including the judgement in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors. v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, (2017) 16 SCC 93, wherein the Court has considered jewellery to be part of personal effects. 7. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Nathan Naray ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re than one year, or return to India, shall be allowed clearance free of duty in his bona fide baggage of jewellery upto a weight, of twenty grams with a value cap of fifty thousands rupees if brought by a gentleman passenger, or forty grams with a value cap of one lakh rupees if brought by a lady passenger. * * * * ANNEXURE-I (See Rules 3, 4 and 6) 1. Fire arms. 2. Cartridges of fire arms exceeding 50. 3. Cigarettes exceeding 100 sticks or cigars exceeding 25 or tobacco exceeding 125 gms. 4. Alcoholic liquor or wines in excess of two litres. 5. Gold or silver in any form other than ornaments. 6. Flat Panel (Liquid Crystal Display/Light-Emitting Diode/Plasma) television." 10. It can be seen from the said rules that a tourist of foreign origin is allowed clearance of articles free of duty as part of his baggage that are either his personal effects and travel souvenirs or are articles that are not prohibited, as mentioned in Annexure-I of the Baggage Rules, up to the value of fifteen thousand rupees, if the same are carried on the person or in the accompanied baggage of such tourist. 11. Further, any jewellery of twenty grams with a value cap of Rs. 50,000/- in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 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 with Appendix E (2) (quoted above), 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 prerequisite 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. * * * * 15. [...] Also, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the appellant are expunged. 18) In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was right in setting aside the show-cause notice dated 12.12.2002 and order dated 14.08.2003 passed by the competent authority. There is no scope to interfere in the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. There is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that the present conclusion is confined only to the disposal of this appeal." 15. In Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors., (2024:DHC:9155-DB) this Court was seized with the issue of deciding 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-à-vis jewellery under the Baggage Rules, in effect from time to time. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are as under: "13. When the 2016 Rules ultimately came to be promulgated, Rule 2 (vi) specifically introduced a definition with respect to "personal effects". As noticed in the preceding parts of this judgment, Rule 2 (vi) while defining "personal ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conspectus of the above decisions and provisions 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 Baggage Rules. Further, the 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. Applicability of the Baggage Rules qua tourists of foreign origin 17. The issue of tourists of foreign origin coming to India with jewellery has been dealt with by this Court in various decisions, including in the following: i) Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs (supra); ii) Farida Aliyeva v. Commissioner of Customs, (2024:DHC:9533-DB) 18. In Nathan Narayansamy (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was dealing with a similar situation wherein certain jewellery was recovered and seized from the baggage items of a tourist holding Malaysian passport. The Court considered the provisions of the Baggage Rules qua a tourist of foreign origin and held as under: "4. Undisputedly, and since the petitioner held a foreign passport, it would be the Proviso t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Saba Simran (supra) as relied upon by the Petitioner. 23. It is also relevant to note the recent decision of this Court in Qamar Jahan v. Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors. (2025:DHC:174-DB), wherein the Court has taken into consideration the Baggage Rules and the various other cases where bona fide tourists and travellers could be put into difficulty in view of the Baggage Rules. The Court had directed as under: "11. On a query from the Court, Mr. Shubham Tyagi, ld. Counsel for the Customs Department, as also Mr. Harpreet Singh, ld. Counsel, who regularly appears for the Customs and is present in Court, have informed the Court, that if any traveller is coming from abroad and is carrying jewellery which is more than the value as prescribed in Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, the same would have to be declared by the said traveller. Further, where the declaration has been made the applicable duty would not have to be paid and an undertaking would have to be given, inter alia, stating that the said traveller intends to carry the declared jewellery back. 12. A perusal of the Baggage Rules or the Declaration Form does not show that this position, qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 2016. Let the re-consideration be undertaken in coordination with any other Departments or Ministries as may be required and the report be filed before this Court regarding the reconsideration and the manner thereof. The report shall be filed by the next date of hearing." 24. A perusal of the above discussion makes it clear that the Baggage Rules have to be interpreted in a manner that does not lead to unnecessary burden upon the tourist, being either of Indian or foreign origin. Accordingly, the term "personal effects" cannot exclude personal jewellery or ornaments, as is clear from a harmonious reading of the Baggage Rules. Conclusion and Directions 25. Considering the above discussion, the jewellery of the Petitioner which has been seized deserves to be released. Let the same be released within a period of two weeks from today to the Petitioner. 26. If the said jewellery has been disposed of for any reason, then the value of the seized jewellery as on date shall be paid to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks. If the same is not paid by 15th March, 2025, interest @8% p.a. would also be liable to be paid by the Customs Department. 27. The Petitioner shall collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
