TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
In Farida Aliyeva Versus Commissioner Of Customs - 2024 (12) TMI 755 - DELHI HIGH COURT, the petitioner is an Azerbajan national. He travelled from Baku to Delhi on 04.11.2024 as a tourist. The petitioner only speaks in Azerbaijani language. On the travel she was wearing 18 carat gold jewellery – a necklace and a bracelet – weighing 0.178 grams. The said ornaments were seized by the customs official while she reached Delhi and the same were detained.
Against the said seizure and detention of her gold ornaments, she filed a writ petition before the High Court. She put forth the following arguments before the High Court-
- The seized ornaments were of her personal gold jewellery.
- According to Rule 3 of Baggage Rules the personal jewellery would not qualify for seizure.
- Such personal jewellery would not be prohibited under the Customs Act.
The petitioner also prayed for the ought not to be melted by the Department.
The Department contended that the goods are lying with the Customs warehouse. If the petitioner appears the same appraisal would be carried out. Once the value is determined then the said ornaments would be released subject to the orders passed in this regard.
The High Court heard the submissions of both the parties. The High Court perused the detention receipt issued by the Department to the petitioner. The Court analysed the judgment relied on by the petitioner in NATHAN NARAYANSAMY Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS - 2023 (9) TMI 1549 - DELHI HIGH COURT. In that case, the Delhi High Court held that the personal effects would be exempt if they are in the form or ornaments in case of a foreigner.
In the said case the petitioner came from Singapore to New Delhi on 08.10.2022. When he crossed the green channel and moved to the exit gate he was interrupted and being questioned by the authorities. The Authorities searched the baggage of the petitioner and found a yellow metallic kada weighing about 463 grams, the value of the same is to the tune of Rs.21.45 lakhs.
The High Court analyzed the provisions of Rule 3 of Baggage Rules, 2016. The said rules were framed in terms of Section 79 of the Customs Act. The said Rule provides that an Indian resident or a foreigner residing in India or a tourist of Indian origin, not being of an infant arriving from any country other than Nepal, Bhutan or Myanmar, shall be allowed clearance free of duty articles in his bona fide baggage, that is to say-
- used personal effects and travel souvenirs; and
- articles other than those mentioned in Annexure I, up to the value of Rs.50,000/- if these are carried on the person or in the accompanied luggage of the passenger.
The proviso to Rule 3 provides that a tourist of foreign origin, not being an infant, shall be allowed clearance free of duty articles in his bona fide luggage, that is to say-
- used personal effects and travel souvenirs; and
- articles other than those mentioned in Annexure I, up to the value of Rs.50,000/- if these are carried on the person or in the accompanied luggage of the passenger.
The High Court observed that since the petitioner held a foreign passport, the proviso to Rule 3 will apply to the petitioner. The Entry 5 in Annexure – I speaks of silver or gold in any form other than ornaments. The High Court observed that the chain and the kada would fall in the category of ‘jewellery’. Therefore, the seizure of the gold articles is not sustainable. The High Court also noted that Rule 5 pertains to a passenger returning to India after having resided abroad for more than one year. That would clearly not apply to the petitioner who is a foreign national.
In the said case the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the seizure proceedings as emanating from the notice dated 08.10.2022. The High Court directed the department to return the seized articles to the petitioner.
In view of the decision of the High Court the High Court held that the gold ornaments worn by the petitioner travelling from Azerbaijan to India would not be liable to be seized the quashed the detention receipt. The High Court directed the department to return the ornaments within one week from the date of receipt of the order. The High Court also directed the petitioner not to sell the said articles and shall carry back the same with her to the country of origin