Baggage gold jewellery and customs confiscation: excess jewellery may be penalised, but not treated as prohibited goods by default

Gold jewellery carried by an arriving passenger is not prohibited goods under the Customs Act, 1962 merely because it is imported, absent a statutory order under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Excess jewellery brought as baggage, however, can be liable to confiscation where baggage declaration requirements are not complied with. The commentary also notes that absolute confiscation may be disproportionate on the facts, warranting moderated penalty and relief in lieu of harsh seizure. Where the goods have not been cleared for home consumption, duty liability is not attracted on the stated facts. The operative effect is partial relief against confiscation and penalty while maintaining liability for breach of baggage rules in principle.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the gold jewellery brought by the passenger was prohibited goods so as to attract confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the excess gold jewellery imported as baggage was liable to confiscation and penalty, and what relief should follow.

Issue (i): Whether the gold jewellery brought by the passenger was prohibited goods so as to attract confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The record did not show any order under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 declaring such goods prohibited. In the absence of a statutory order bringing the jewellery within the definition of prohibited goods, the mere import of gold jewellery did not make it prohibited under the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The goods were not prohibited goods and confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the excess gold jewellery imported as baggage was liable to confiscation and penalty, and what relief should follow.

Analysis: The jewellery exceeded the baggage allowance and the passenger had not complied with the declaration requirements applicable to arriving baggage. On that footing, the goods were liable to confiscation. At the same time, the circumstances did not justify affirming absolute confiscation, and the penalty was required to be moderated. The goods were also not liable to duty as they had not been cleared for home consumption.

Conclusion: Confiscation for breach of baggage requirements was upheld in principle, but absolute confiscation was set aside, the penalty was reduced, and the passenger was permitted to take the jewellery out of the country on compliance with the penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, with relief against absolute confiscation and reduction of penalty, while the liability arising from breach of baggage import requirements was maintained in principle.

Ratio Decidendi: Gold jewellery carried as baggage is not prohibited goods merely because it is imported in excess of baggage entitlement; however, failure to comply with baggage declaration requirements can render it liable to confiscation and penalty, subject to proportional relief on the facts.

---