Court upholds seizure of gold jewelry concealed under burka at airport; directed release upon payment of duty

The court ruled against quashing the Seizure notice regarding gold jewelry found at Chennai Airport, valued at &8377;11,44,201, concealed under a petitioner's burka. Despite the initial denial of knowledge about the items, the court considered factors such as her nationality and her husband's employment in Bangkok. Following precedent, the court directed the provisional release of the jewelry upon payment of 50% duty. The petitioner must pay the duty, file a personal bond for the remaining amount, cooperate in adjudication, and the third respondent will release the jewelry upon payment. The writ petition was disposed of with these directives and no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
1. Seizure of gold jewelry at Chennai Airport
2. Petitioner's request to quash the Seizure notice
3. Provisional release of gold jewelry subject to payment of duty

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the case of an Indian national who landed in Chennai Airport from Bangkok, where customs officials found a gold chain and metal bracelet concealed under her burka. The gold was valued at &8377; 11,44,201. The petitioner initially stated that someone unknown gave her the items to deliver at the airport but later retracted her statement. The court ruled that the Seizure mahazar cannot be quashed as it documents the events at the airport. However, considering the petitioner's nationality, her husband's employment in Bangkok, and the non-prohibited nature of gold, the court directed the provisional release of the gold jewelry upon payment of 50% duty, similar to a previous case.

In a previous case, W.P.No.1421 of 2011, where assorted gold jewelry was seized, the court ordered provisional release with conditions. The Department appealed in W.A.No.582 of 2011, leading to a modification requiring the petitioner to deposit 50% of the duty for the jewelry's value for immediate release. The court found this approach suitable to safeguard revenue interests. Consequently, in the current case, the court decided to issue a similar direction for the provisional release of the gold jewelry, subject to the petitioner paying 50% of the duty as determined by the authorities.

The judgment concludes by rejecting the petitioner's request to quash the Seizure mahazar but directing the third respondent to release the gold jewelry upon payment of 50% of the duty. The petitioner must file a personal bond for the remaining amount and keep it active until the adjudication process concludes. The third respondent will calculate the duty, issue a notice, release the jewelry upon payment, and the petitioner must cooperate during the adjudication proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions, and no costs are awarded.

---