Madras High Court Quashes Confiscation Order: Baggage Rules Deemed Ultra Vires

Chennai, February 1, 2025 – In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has quashed a confiscation order issued by customs officials against Thanushika , a Sri Lankan citizen, highlighting the limitations of the Baggage Rules, 2016, in relation to the Customs Act, 1962. Justice KrishnanRamasamy delivered the judgment on January 31st, 2025, in Thanushika v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai) .

Case Overview

Thanushika , along with her in-laws and children, arrived at Chennai International Airport on December 30, 2023. Customs officials, led by Seizing Officer S. Mythili , seized gold ornaments, including Thanushika 's thaalikodi (mangalsutra), a sacred necklace, claiming it violated the Baggage Rules, 2016. Thanushika argued that the seizure was unlawful, alleging mistreatment and the falsification of records.

Arguments Presented

Thanushika 's counsel argued that the seizure was inappropriate, emphasizing the sentimental value of the thaalikodi and the aggressive behavior of the customs officers. They further contended that the Baggage Rules, 2016, exceeded the authority granted under Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly regarding items "carried on the person," as opposed to those within baggage.

The respondents, represented by Mr. M. Santhanaraman , argued that Thanushika possessed more gold than allowed under the Baggage Rules and that the seizure was conducted according to procedure. They maintained that the rules applied regardless of whether the gold was worn or packed.

Legal Precedents and Principles

The court meticulously examined the relevant sections of the Customs Act and the Baggage Rules. Justice Ramasamy cited the Division Bench's judgment in CMA.No.1716 of 2020 , acknowledging that the definition of "baggage" in the Baggage Rules is broader than in the Customs Act. However, the judge ultimately ruled that the inclusion of "carried on the person" in Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules was ultra vires Section 79 of the Customs Act. This means the rule exceeded the powers delegated by the Act.

The court also emphasized the importance of respecting cultural and religious sentiments during customs checks. The forceful removal of Thanushika 's thaalikodi , a deeply significant symbol in Hindu culture, was deemed unacceptable.

The court noted that the respondents failed to specifically deny several allegations of misconduct in their counter-affidavit, leading the court to deem them admitted. This included allegations of mistreatment and the falsification of the mahazar (official seizure report).

Court's Decision and Implications

The court quashed the confiscation order, citing several reasons: the failure to issue a show-cause notice, the lack of a proper hearing, the fabrication of evidence in the mahazar , and the ultra vires nature of the Baggage Rules provision relating to items "carried on the person." The court ordered the release of the seized gold within seven days.

Furthermore, the court directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs (Tamil Nadu & Puducherry) to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of the officials involved and take appropriate action within three months. The matter concerning Seizing Officer S. Mythili was specifically referred to the Department of Personnel & Training (IRS-Customs) for an inquiry into her conduct.

This judgment sets a crucial precedent, highlighting the limitations of delegated legislation and the importance of respecting cultural sensitivities during enforcement actions. It underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that administrative actions remain within the confines of the law and uphold principles of natural justice.