Bona fide personal jewellery is protected under personal effects, and failure to provide a personal hearing invalidates confiscation orders by customs.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Shamina under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of the four gold bangles of the Petitioner, weighing 100 grams, which have been detained by the Customs Department vide detention receipt bearing no. 4019 dated 19th March 2024. An Order-in-Original dated 9th October 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) has been passed by which absolute confiscation of the four gold bangles has been ordered. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:

“i) I deny the 'Free Allowance', if any, admissible to the Pax Shamina for not declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted her and recovered the detained goods from her.

ii) I declare the passenger Shamina as an "ineligible Passenger" for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017- Customs dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended).

iii) I order absolute confiscation of Four Gold bangles having average purity 998 with gross and net weight 100 grams having Assessable value Rs.6,27,900/- recovered from the Pax Shamina and detained vide DR No.DR/INDEL4/l 9.03.2024/004019 dated 19.03.2024 under section 111(d), 111 (i), 111 (j) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, I 962;

iv) I also imposed penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac Only) on the Pax Shamina under section 112 (a) and 112(b)of the Customs Act, 1962.”

3. The case of the Petitioner is that she is an Indian citizen, who had gone to Riyadh to meet her husband,who was working in Riyadh,and was wearing the said four gold bangles which formed part of her personal jewellery. Upon her arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, the Petitioner did not declare the same as the said bangles were her personal jewellery which were worn by her.

4. After the detention of the said bangles, a detention receipt dated 19th March 2024 was issued to the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, on 9th October, 2024, a lawyer engaged by the Petitioner appeared before the Customs Department on behalf of the Petitioner and was handed over the copy of the impugned order. Moreover, another lawyer engaged by the Petitionervisited the office of the Customs Department on 09th September, 2024 andwaived the issuance of the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’).

5. As per the Petitioner, since these four gold bangles are used jewellery the same are liable to be released. Further, it is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that no personal hearing was granted and the waiver to the SCN is contrary to law.

6. Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent, submits that the advocate engaged by Petitioner herself has waived the SCN and personal hearing and has in fact received the oral SCN and therefore, there is no illegality

7. The Court has considered the matter. It is to be noted that no personal hearing has been granted to the Petitioner in the present case. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the Adjudicating Authority holds that the Petitioner is an ineligible passenger and has relied under Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 to hold that the cap which has been fixed under the said rule is much lower and the value of the gold which the Petitioner was carrying is higher. Further, the Adjudicating Authority records that these are four gold bangles with average purity of 998 and therefore, it is not in the nature of jewellery.

8. The weight of four gold bangles collectively is 100 grams which means that each