IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Thanushika – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai) – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to release the gold ornaments inappropriately seized by the respondents vide Seizure/Detention file Nos.OS No.1569/2023 AIU B, OS No.1570/2023 AIU B, OS.No.1571/2023 AIU B dated 30.12.2023.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a citizen of SriLanka and had come down to Chennai and She got married to one Jeyakanth, who is also a Srilankan citizen and their marriage was solemnized at the SRO, Madurandhagam, Chengalpet District on 15.07.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner's husband left for France, where he is living currently and the petitioner left for SriLanka with her parents to await till she get spouse sponsor visa. She got her visa in the month of November 2023. Thereafter, once again, she travelled to India and landed at Chennai International Airport on 30.12.2023 at 03.30 pm along with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law with her children. As her husband had also come from France on 27.12.2023, to accompany her to France, they planned for pilgrimage too, to visit the various temples in Tamil Nadu, as it is our custom and tradition since she is newly married and yet to st
State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Lakhwinder Kumar and others
State of Tamil Nadu and Another vs. P. Krishnamurthy and others
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association vs. Union of India
Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional Director, NCTE
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.
Worn jewelry is not considered baggage under the Customs Act, and regulations exceeding statutory limits are ultra vires.
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 gold jewellery worn by a foreign national upon entering India is considered personal effects and cannot be confiscated without clear legal prohibition.
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.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.