$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 06 September 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 27 November 2024 + W.P.(C) 3612/2024, CM APPL. 14845/2024 (Interim Relief) &

CM APPL. 26451/2024 (Interim Relief)

SABA SIMRAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Tiwari and Kumari Nidhi Tripathi, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocate for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

J U D G M E N T

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) Issue of Writ/Writs in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the order dated 21.09.2023 and detention receipt dated 25.05.2023 to initiate strict action against respondent no. 3; and/or (b) Issue of Writ/Writs in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or direction in the nature thereof and direct the respondent no. 3 to release Petitioner’s gold ornaments that has been illegally detained/confiscated by Respondent no. 3 at the time when Petitioner was returning from Dubai after completing her movie shoot; and/or (c) Issue of Writ/Writs in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or direction in the nature thereof and direct the respondent no. 3 to pay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P. (C) 3612/2024 Page 1 of 19 a compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment.”

2. The petitioner had travelled from Bengaluru to Dubai on 22 May 2023 for the shooting of her film. She returned on 25 May 2023 by an Indigo flight from Dubai at Delhi International Airport, Terminal-3 and opted for the green channel. She was intercepted by a Customs Officer after she had crossed the green channel. On her search, one plastic box containing 3 gold bangles, weighing 130 grams, 15 gold beads (parts of bracelets) weighing 89 grams were recovered. The recovered goods were detained vide Detention Receipt dated 25 May 2023.

3. Order-in-Original dated 21 September 2023 was passed concluding as under:-

“(i) I deny the 'Free Allowance' if any admissible to the Pax Ms. Simran Saba for not declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted her and recovered the detained goods from her.

(ii) I order absolute confiscation of the above said detained gold jewellery i.e. "One (1) copper colour gold bangle and two (02) black colour enamelled gold bangles having purity 916 weighing 130.00 Gram and Fifteen (IS) black colour enamelled gold beads having purity 965 weighing 89.00 gram collectively weighing 219.00 gram valued at Rs.12,02,960.00" (as on 25.05.2023) recovered from the Pax Ms. Simran Saba and detained vide DR/INDEL4 /25.05.2023/001951 Dated 25.05.2023, under Section

111(d), 111(i), 111(j) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962;

(iii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,20,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Only) on the Pax, Ms. Simran Saba under Section 112a & 112b of the Customs Act, 1962.”

4. As is manifest from the extracts of the Order-in-Original reproduced hereinabove, the respondents have essentially borne in consideration the quantity and valuation limits as existing in the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P. (C) 3612/2024 Page 2 of 19 Baggage Rules, 2016, [2016 Rules] to be applicable to every incoming passenger, irrespective of whether the jewellery and ornaments borne on the person or in the baggage is sought to be “imported”, had been “acquired” as opposed to being personal items or items of “personal effect”, an expression which is used in the 2016 Rules. According to the respondents, all jewellery and ornaments, personal or otherwise, is liable to be viewed as prohibited goods in addition to being subject to the restrictions contained in the 2016 Rules.

5. Suffice it to note that the issue of prohibited or restricted goods would arise provided the articles were being imported. While it is true that the Customs Act, 1962,