Worn jewelry is not considered baggage under the Customs Act, and regulations exceeding statutory limits are ultra vires.

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 2^nd 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 attached to 2^nd respondent had detained the 10 nos. of gold bangles, which worn by her person, stating that it is the case of importation in contravention of the Baggage Rules and provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The bangles weighing about 135 grams taken from the custody of the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent's officials on 15.01.2024 under the Detention Mmemo No.18450 dated 15.01.2024.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the aforesaid bangles were old, which were purchased about 12 years back and she wore the bangles, chains, etc. to Abu Dhabi only for the purpose of attending friend's marriage at Abu Dhabi and thereafter, returned back with the bangles, which were worn by her.

6. He would also submit that the 2^nd respondent-officials directed the petitioner to handover the 10 nos. of bangles and the same was removed from her hand and handed over to the officials. However, they have not asked anything about the gold chain and ring.

7. According to the petitioner, these bangles were not hided in any way and hence, it is proprietorial rights of the petitioner to hold movables in the form of jewelery and bangles. Further, he would submit that any person is entitled to be in possession of movables on the account of their social standing and afford ability.

8. Further, the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, also does not provide any prohibition for wearing the gold jewelery and only the Act fixed the limitation to carry the baggage. Section 101 and 102 of the Customs Act, 1962, deal with the provisions as to if any material was secreted in their body. In the present case, no such things were secreted and it was openly worn by her in both hands, which is easily visible to anyone. Therefore, the question of secreting does not arise and since the said gold was not secreted in her body in terms of the provisions of Section 101, there is no prohibition for wearing the same. In such case, the detention made by the 2^nd respondent is against the Baggage Rules, 2016 and also in contravention to the provisions of Sections 79 and 101 of the Customs Act, 1962.

9. Further, he would submit that the petitioner has also made a representation on 08.02.2024 to release the bangles, which was taken from her custody on 15.01.2024 by the 2^nd respondent officials under the Detention Memo No.18450 dated 15.01.2024. However, the same is yet to be disposed of. Hence, the present writ petition.

10. In reply, the learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondents had filed a counter, wherein they had denied the averments made in the affidavit in general. However, there was no specific denial about the allegations made by the petitioner against the officials vide the affidavit dated 18.02.2024.

11. The respondents had admitted the fa