Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C. SARAVANAN
Jhansi Rani, W/o. Shri Sathyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-I Commissionerate, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner is before this Court against the Impugned Order No.17-18-19/2021-Cus.(SZ)/ASRA/Mumbai dated 27.01.2021 made in F.No.373/214A,B,C/B/16-RA/1035 passed by the fourth respondent under Section 129DD of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Impugned Order No.17 in respect of order of the third respondent in Order-in-Appeal C.Cus-I Nos.263 to 265 of 2016 dated 27.06.2016 whereby, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Order-in-Original No.356/2015-2016-AIRPORT made in F.No.O.S.No.793/2015-AIR dated 23.11.2015 has been affirmed.
3. The petitioner flew from Dubai on 09.08.2015 along with two others namely Smt.Deepa Sathishkumar and Smt.Ekambaram Devi. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner was found wearing one gold chain and eight gold bangles totally weighing about 791 grams and valued at Rs.19,89,365/-.
4. The case of the Department is that the petitioner attempted to walk through the Green Channel without declaring the gold jewellery to the requirements of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962 and the rules and thus, by an Order dated 23.11.2015, the Additional Commissioner of Customs vide Order-in-Original No.356/2015-2016
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.
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.
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 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.
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....
Quasi-judicial proceedings require strict adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses, which was violated in this case, rendering the confiscation order....
The disposal of seized property without notice and due process violates constitutional rights, rendering such actions illegal and unconstitutional.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
