Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Arasi Inpamaty Mathiaparanam – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.04.2024 in F.No.OS.No.1569/2023, F.No.OS.No.1570/2023 and F.No.OS.No.1571/2023 passed by the respondent and also to direct the respondent to release the Gold ornaments inappropriately seized by the respondent officials vide seizure/detention file Nos.OS No.1569/2003 AIU B, OS.No.1570/2023 AIU B, and OS.No.1571/2023 AIU B dated 30.12.2023.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are citizens of SriLanka and had come down to Chennai and landed at Chennai International Airport on 30.12.2023 at 03.30 pm along with 3 children. They planned for pilgrimage, to visit various temples in Tamil Nadu, as it is their custom and tradition. The 2nd petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the 1st petitioner and she was newly married to one Jeyakanth/son of the 1st petitioner. The 3rd petitioner is the daughter of the 1st petitioner. The details of the family members, who had arrived at Chennai on 30.12.2023, are as follows:
| S. No. | Name | Age | Relation to petitioner |
| 1 | Arasu Inbamathi | 60 | 1st petitioner |
| 2 | Thanushika | 30 | 2nd petitioner |
| 3 | Kirushalini | 39 | 3rd petitioner |
| 4 | Abilin Reegan | 8 | Children of 3rd petitioner |
| 5 | Akshara | ||
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.
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....
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
