Bona fide baggage exemption denied for concealed undeclared diamonds carried through the green channel and treated as liable to confiscation.

Undeclared loose diamonds carried through the green channel were not bona fide baggage because they were concealed, not declared to Customs, and were commercial diamonds rather than personal effects or ornaments. On that basis, the baggage exemption and nil-duty claim failed, as the benefit was unavailable where import was not lawfully and properly made and the goods were attempted to be smuggled in breach of customs and foreign trade law. The precedent cited by the applicant was distinguished because it did not involve concealed, undeclared goods imported in violation of law. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were therefore treated as sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether undeclared loose diamonds brought in baggage were bona fide baggage entitled to exemption and nil duty, and whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The passenger opted for the green channel but did not declare the diamonds to Customs as required. The goods were recovered in a concealed manner and were described as loose commercial diamonds, not ornaments or personal effects. On these facts, the goods did not qualify as bona fide baggage within the meaning applied in baggage clearance law. The claim for exemption under the Customs tariff notification failed because the benefit of exemption was unavailable where the import was not lawfully and properly made and the goods were attempted to be smuggled into India in violation of the Customs Act and the foreign trade regime. The earlier precedent relied on by the applicant was distinguished because it did not concern undeclared and concealed goods imported in breach of law.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly treated as liable to confiscation, and the redemption fine and penalty were upheld.

---