Duty-free baggage allowance applies to permissible goods, while commercial-quantity imports face confiscation, penalty, and barred re-export.

Goods within the permissible duty-free baggage allowance may be cleared as bona fide baggage, and separate treatment can be given to items falling within that admissible limit. Woollen textiles valued at Rs. 30,000 were therefore allowed clearance under the baggage regime. Goods brought in commercial quantity were not treated as bona fide baggage and, being contrary to customs and foreign trade restrictions, remained liable to confiscation and penalty. Re-export was refused because no timely request had been made at arrival under the relevant baggage provision, and a belated request at the revision stage was insufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the woollen textiles valued at Rs. 30,000 were entitled to clearance under the duty free baggage allowance; (ii) whether the remaining goods brought in commercial quantity constituted bona fide baggage and were liable to confiscation and penalty; (iii) whether re-export of the confiscated goods could be allowed.

Issue (i): whether the woollen textiles valued at Rs. 30,000 were entitled to clearance under the duty free baggage allowance.

Analysis: The goods were found to be within the admissible baggage allowance and were not treated as commercial quantity. They could therefore be considered separately from the other seized items and assessed under the baggage regime.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee. The woollen textiles were allowed clearance under the duty free baggage allowance.

Issue (ii): whether the remaining goods brought in commercial quantity constituted bona fide baggage and were liable to confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The other items were found to be in commercial quantity and, on that basis, not to constitute bona fide baggage within the meaning of the baggage provisions. Their import was treated as contrary to the governing customs and foreign trade restrictions, justifying confiscation and imposition of penalty.

Conclusion: Against the assessee. The confiscation of the remaining goods and the penalty were upheld.

Issue (iii): whether re-export of the confiscated goods could be allowed.

Analysis: Re-export was declined because no request for re-export had been made at the time of arrival under the relevant baggage provision, and the request was made only at the revision stage. The cited cases were held inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: Against the assessee. Re-export was not allowed.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the limited extent of extending duty free baggage treatment to the woollen textiles, while the confiscation, penalty, and refusal of re-export for the remaining goods were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods within the permissible baggage allowance may be cleared as bona fide baggage, but goods imported in commercial quantity are liable to confiscation and penalty, and re-export cannot be claimed belatedly without the requisite timely declaration or request under the baggage law.

---