Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 17162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.SARAVANAN, J
N.Kaliyamoorthy – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Customs – Respondent
W.P.Nos.61, 378, 382, 386, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392 and 395 of 2022 | W.M.P.Nos.54, 436, 440, 443, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449 and 452 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Sathish Sundar
For the Respondents: Ms.Anu Ganesan
The court held that absolute confiscation of gold jewellery was unjustified, allowing for redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, despite violations of baggage rules.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 77, 111(d), 112, 114, 125 - Baggage Rules, 1998 - Petitioners attempted to smuggle gold jewellery without declaring it upon arrival, leading to confiscation orders - Court found that the absolute confiscation was not sustainable and petitioners should be allowed redemption under Section 125. (Paras 3, 10, 42, 44)
(B) Import and Export Regulations - The import of gold is regulated and not prohibited; thus, proper declarations are required for duty exemptions. (Paras 38, 39)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, members of a jewellery association, returned from Malaysia with undeclared gold jewellery, resulting in confiscation under the Customs Act. (Paras 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioners could redeem the confiscated gold under Section 125, as the absolute confiscation was unjustified. (Paras 42, 46)
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to redeem the confiscated gold jewellery despite violations of baggage rules. (Paras 21, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while the baggage rules were violated, the gold was not prohibited, and the petitioners must be given the chance to redeem it under Section 125. (Paras 39, 44)
Result: Writ Petitions allowed, with a directive to allow redemption of the confiscated goods.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstances of gold import and declarations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. show cause notice and legal violations. (Para 7 , 10) |
| 3. statements from trip organizer and implications. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. appeal process and decision. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. legal issues concerning baggage rules. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. conditions for eligible passengers in gold import. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. definition and implications of baggage. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. duty exemptions under baggage rules. (Para 33 , 34 , 36 , 37) |
| 9. regulations on gold importation. (Para 40 , 41) |
| 10. confiscation and redemption rights. (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 11. remittance of case for further proceedings. (Para 46 , 48) |
COMMON ORDER
By this Common Order, all the Writ Petitions are being disposed of.
2. Almost a similar case was also heard on 23.08.2024 in W.P.No.15217 of 2021.
3. The facts of the case are also somewhat similar and the issue that arise for consideration in the said Writ Petition and the present Writ Petitions is whether the petitioners who had imported gold jewellery and had walked out without making a declaration under the Baggage Rules, 1998 read with Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 are entitled for redemption of the gold jewellery imported by them which was attempted to be smuggled by them without making declaration under the aforesaid Rules.
4. The brief fact of the case are that the petitioners are part of the Tamil Nadu Jewellery Merchants Association at Panruti and had travelled to Malaysia for a period of six days and had returned on 27.07.2013. On arrival, the petitioners attempted to walk through the green channel subsequently were arrested on 28.07.2013 and thereafter, released on 30.07.2013. Meanwhile, statements were recorded from each of the petitioners on 27.07.2013.
5. In the statements that were recorded, these petitioners had stated that each of them were given jewellery which was found in their possession by one Mr.P.S.Ranganathan which was to be handed over to him outside Chennai Airport. Statements recorded from each of the petitioners, are almost identical. Statement of Mr.P.S.Ranganathan who appears to be the organizer of the trip was also recorded on the same date. Several amounts carried by them and value of the jewellery found in their possession.
6. The statement of the petitioner in W.P.No.378 of 2022 namely Sivaguru Sumathi and the statement of the petitioner in W.P.No.61 of 2022 namely N.Kaliyamoorthy and the Statement of the trip organizer namely Mr.P.S.Ranganathan are captured below:-
i. He owns a gold pawn shop and was the secretary of the Jewellers' Association.
ii. He had paid Rs.2,000 pm for 5 years.
iii. Was handed over Rs.2,50,000/- plus he carried Rs.45,000/-
iv. When he came to Malaysia after spending three days in Singapore, he was given two gold bracelets and one gold chain to be handed over outside Chennai Airport.
v. Would be given 22 Carat gold of same weight
i. Jewellery of 24 Carat was bought by each co-passenger as 22 Carat was costlier and the Jewellers told they could carry gold up to the value of Rs.5,00,000/- and customs duty thereon would be meagre.
ii. He did not meet Shri Ranganathan in Singapore or Malaysia and hence could not inform about the purchase.
iii. The jewellery was bought using the money handed over by him to each passenger and through selling of some of the
i. He is the President of the TN Jewellery Merchants Association at Panruti, and his son owned a gold jewellery shop namely S.R.Jewellery in Panruti. He is also a partner along with his son-in-law in the gold jewellery shop at Neyveli.
ii. He used to go to Singapore for the past 10 years, that last year he went once and this year he went twice.
iii. All passengers who came along were all members of the Jewellers' Association.
iv. Funds from the chit as well as funds mobilized by him was utilized for purchase of jewellery.
i. Through the chit, he managed to provide Rs.7,75,000/- with an interest of Rs.5,11,500/- totalling to Rs.12,86,5
