Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, J
Sabeena Mohammed Moidenn – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Customs, Meenambakkam – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to act on the petitioner's representation dated 08.02.2024 and cause release of the 10 nos. of bangles weighing about 135 grams taken from my custody on 15.01.2024 by the officers of the 2nd respondent under Detention Memo No.18450 dated 15.01.2024.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a resident of Chennai and her husband is an IT professional working in Abudhabi. Out of his earnings and savings, the petitioner and her husband acquired substantial properties, including movables in the form of jewellery, from time to time.
3. Further, the petitioner would submit that she embarked on a visit to Abudhabi on 24.12.2023 to be with her husband, made a social visit as also attend a marriage function of one Aamir Ali, a close relative. The petitioner has filed the marriage invitation and the photos taken along with the bride and groom at Abudhabi. She undertook the visit along with her 2 children and was wearing 10 numbers of gold bangles, chain and a ring as part of her person when she left for abroad.
4. After completing her visit, when she returned to India, at International Airport, Chennai, the officer atta
Worn jewelry is not considered baggage under the Customs Act, and regulations exceeding statutory limits are ultra vires.
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 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.
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 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 gold jewellery worn by a foreign national upon entering India is considered personal effects and cannot be confiscated without clear legal prohibition.
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.
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....
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....
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
