IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAVINDER DUDEJA, YASHWANT VARMA, JJ.
Saba Simran - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 3612/2024, CM APPL. 14845/2024 (Interim Relief) & CM APPL. 26451/2024 (Interim Relief)
Decided On : 27-11-2024
(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), 111(m), 112a, 112b - Baggage Rules, 2016 - Quashing of confiscation order - Petitioner's gold jewellery detained at customs - Court held that personal effects, including jewellery, are not subject to import restrictions if not acquired for import - Confiscation order quashed as it lacked legal foundation. (Paras 3, 5, 16, 22)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the customs authorities must provide clear guidelines on what constitutes prohibited items for tourists, ensuring fairness and clarity in enforcement. (Paras 19, 20)
JUDGMENT :
(Ravinder Dudeja, J.)
1. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
(b) Issue of Writ/Writs in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or direction in the nature thereof and direct the respondent no. 3 to release Petitioner’s gold ornaments that has been illegally detained/confiscated by Respondent no. 3 at the time when Petitioner was returning from Dubai after completing her movie shoot; and/or
(c) Issue of Writ/Writs in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or direction in the nature thereof and direct the respondent no. 3 to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment.”
2. The petitioner had travelled from Bengaluru to Dubai on 22 May 2023 for the shooting of her film. She returned on 25 May 2023 by an Indigo flight from Dubai at Delhi International Airport, Terminal-3 and opted for the green channel. She was intercepted by a Customs Officer after she had crossed the green channel. On her search, one plastic box containing 3 gold bangles, weighing 130 grams, 15 gold beads (parts of bracelets) weighing 89 grams were recovered. The recovered goods were detained vide Detention Receipt dated 25 May 2023.
3. Order-in-Original dated 21 September 2023 was passed concluding as under:-
(ii) I order absolute confiscation of the above said detained gold jewellery i.e. "One (1) copper colour gold bangle and two (02) black colour enamelled gold bangles having purity 916 weighing 130.00 Gram and Fifteen (IS) black colour enamelled gold beads having purity 965 weighing 89.00 gram collectively weighing 219.00 gram valued at Rs.12,02,960.00" (as on 25.05.2023) recovered from the Pax Ms. Simran Saba and detained vide DR/INDEL4 /25.05.2023/001951 Dated 25.05.2023, under Section 111(d), 111(i), 111(j) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962;
(iii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,20,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Only) on the Pax, Ms. Simran Saba under Section 112a & 112b of the Customs Act, 1962.”
4. As is manifest from the extracts of the Order-in-Original reproduced hereinabove, the respondents have essentially borne in consideration the quantity and valuation limits as existing in the Baggage Rules, 2016,[2016 Rules] to be applicable to every incoming passenger, irrespective of whether the jewellery and ornaments borne on the person or in the baggage is sought to be “imported”, had been “acquired” as opposed to being personal items or items of “personal effect”, an expression which is used in the 2016 Rules. According to the respondents, all jewellery and ornaments, personal or otherwise, is liable to be viewed as prohibited goods in addition to being subject to the restrictions contained in the 2016 Rules.
5. Suffice it to note that the issue of prohibited or restricted goods would arise provided the articles were being imported. While it is true that the Customs Act, 1962,[Act] defines the word ‘import’ as being the act of bringing an article into India from a place outside, the phrase ‘bringing into’ cannot possibly be construed as being applicable to “personal effects”. The phrase ‘bringing into’ would clearly connote an article acquired and being sought to be brought into India and thus crossing customs boundaries and becoming exigible to the levy of customs duty. If the expression “personal effects” were borne in consideration, it would include all items which are carried by an incoming passenger for satisfying daily necessities. That phrase could include jewellery and ornaments which are personal items. Since
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and others vs. Pushpa Lekhumal Tulani
Personal jewellery carried by a passenger is not subject to customs restrictions if not intended for import, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines from customs authorities.
The court ruled that gold jewellery worn by a foreign national upon entering India is considered personal effects and cannot be confiscated without clear legal prohibition.
The court affirmed that personal jewellery should not be excluded from the category of personal effects under the Baggage Rules, ensuring fair treatment for bona fide tourists.
The court ruled that the Baggage Rules, 2016, cannot exceed or restrict the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly regarding personal ornaments worn by travelers.
The Baggage Rules do not apply to jewelry worn by travelers, limiting customs authority in seizing sentimental cultural items, framed as ultra vires under Section 79 of the Customs Act.
Worn jewelry is not considered baggage under the Customs Act, and regulations exceeding statutory limits are ultra vires.
Gold and jewellary are freely importable items.Passing through green channel itself is declaration of there being no dutiable goods, more so when there is no attempt to conceal the goods. Intention o....
Legal importation of gold requires compliance with customs duty and declaration; failure to declare renders goods liable for confiscation, but redemption options exist under the Act.
Bona fide personal jewellery is protected under personal effects, and failure to provide a personal hearing invalidates confiscation orders by customs.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of fact cannot be revisited unless they suffer from manifest perversity, and the court's decision was based on the positive fi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.