IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Ravinder Dudeja, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed, seeking following relief :

“(a) Issue a Writ Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction for release/return/re-export the gold to the Petitioner.”

2. Shorn of all the unnecessary details, the brief facts are as follows.

3. Petitioner is a Foreign National of Indian origin and a resident of Thailand. He arrived in India from Bangkok on 25.04.2014. Near the exit gate after he had crossed the green channel, the Officers of Customs enquired from the petitioner whether he was carrying any goods which he needed to declare to the Customs, to which, he replied in negative. As per Indian Customs Declaration Form of the petitioner, there were no dutiable goods carried by him. Petitioner had not declared any gold/bullion in Column No. 10 (ii) & (iii) in the declaration form. On his personal search, a gold chain and a gold kara were recovered. After examining the same, the Jewellery Appraiser reported that the total weight of the gold was 501.00 grams, valued at Rs.13,12,861/-. Since the petitioner did not provide any documents regarding the possession of the gold chain and kara, the same were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 [“Act”] on the reasonable belief that the same were imported to India illegally and were attempted to be cleared without payment of customs duty.

4. A Show Cause Notice dated 14.10.2024 was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner filed his response stating that gold jewellery was purchased by his wife for his daughter’s wedding.

5. Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2015 was passed, thereby, confiscating the gold chain and kara. However, the petitioner was given an option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and payment of applicable customs duty at the rate of 36.05%. A penalty of Rs.1,25,000/- was also imposed upon the petitioner.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs. Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) went in favour of the petitioner and directed the Department to return the gold jewellery to the petitioner.

7. Order-in-Appeal was challenged in revision before the Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The Revisional Authority vide order dated 13.08.2018 allowed the revision application and set aside the Order-in-Appeal and restored the Orderin- Original. Said order is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has argued that petitioner is the owner of the gold jewellery. It is submitted that gold weighing 1742 grams was purchased by the wife of the petitioner from M/s. Shagun Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Paschim Vihar vide Invoice no. 4329 dated 21.04.2021 against payment made through NRI account jointly held by the petitioner and his wife, maintained with Canara Bank. It is submitted that the gold kara and chain in question were made out of part of the said gold from M/s. Roop Jewellers, Arya Samaj Mandir, Rani Bagh for a consideration of Rs. 5570/-. It is submitted that the ornaments were seized ignoring the invoices produced.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department has argued that petitioner had not made any declaration of gold kara and chain in the Declaration Form. It is submitted that as per the report of the Appraiser, the gold chain and gold kara were made up of 24 carat gold and that petitioner tried to clear the same clandestinely and thus violated the provisions of Section 77 of the Customs Act. It is further submitted that gold is not allowed to be imported freely in the baggage. With regard to the claim of the petitioner that the impugned gold was purchased from India and taken to Bangkok, it is submitted that the petitioner had not obtained export certificate in respect of the said gold while leaving India for Bangkok and there is nothing on record to suggest that