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.

JUDGMENT :

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

Brief Background

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ for directing the Respondents to release and return the seized gold ornaments belonging to the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner is a Thai national who had travelled to Delhi from Thailand on 13^th March, 2024. Upon her arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, she was intercepted by the Customs officials who enquired as to whether she was carrying any gold. The Petitioner was wearing three gold bangles which she showed to the Customs officials. Thereafter, 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., 13^th 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 Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs, W.P. (C) No. 6855/2023 passed on 15th September 2023, to submit that gold being part of the personal effects of the tourist of foreign origin could not have been seized by the Customs Department.

8. In the counter affidavit the stand of the Department is that jewellery is excluded from the ambit of ‘personal effects’. Mr. Jha, ld. Counsel for the Department, submits that in terms of the Baggage Rules, 2016 (hereinafter “Baggage Rules”), since there was an exclusion of jewellery, whenever any foreign tourist carries jewellery, the same ought to be declared.

Analysis & Findings Jewellery vis-a-vis personal effects under the Baggage Rules, 2016

9. The present case would be governed by the Baggage Rules that came into force on 1st April, 2016, passed under Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter “the Act”). The relevant provisions of the Baggage Rules qua personal effects and jewellery are reproduced hereinunder for ease of reference:

“2(vi) “Personal effects” means things required for satisfying daily necessities but does not include jewellery.

*** 

3. Passenger arriving from countries other than Nepal, Bhutan or Myanmar:- An Indian resident or a foreigner residing in India or a tourist of Indian origin, not being an infant arriving from any country other than Nepal, Bhutan or Myanmar, shall be allowed clearance free of duty articles in his bona fide baggage, that is to say:

(a) used personal effects and travel souvenirs; 

(b) articles other than those mentioned in Annexure-I, up to the value of fifty thousand rupees if these are carried o