Customs declaration for worn jewellery: foreign tourists must disclose excess gold ornaments before using the green channel.

Foreign tourists carrying gold jewellery on their person must declare it before crossing the green channel if the ornaments exceed the permissible baggage allowance. Sections 77 and 79 of the Customs Act, read with the Baggage Rules, 2016 and the Customs Baggage Declaration Regulations, 2013, require disclosure of articles not covered by bona fide personal effects; jewellery is not treated as personal effects for this purpose. Where such undeclared jewellery is brought through customs, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty may be sustained, and the writ challenge will fail if the customs authorities' action is otherwise supported by the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether foreign tourists wearing gold jewellery on their person were required to make a declaration before crossing the green channel under the customs regime, and (ii) whether confiscation of the jewellery and imposition of redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 were justified.

Issue (i): whether foreign tourists wearing gold jewellery on their person were required to make a declaration before crossing the green channel under the customs regime.

Analysis: Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 obliges the owner of baggage to declare its contents for clearance, while Section 79 permits only bona fide baggage to be passed free of duty subject to the statutory rules. Under Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, a tourist may carry duty-free only used personal effects and, in addition, other articles within the prescribed value limit; jewellery is not included in the definition of personal effects under Rule 2(vi). The Court held that gold ornaments worn by the petitioners exceeded the permissible allowance and therefore could not be treated as bona fide baggage exempt from declaration. The Customs Baggage Declaration Regulations, 2013 and the baggage rules required disclosure before proceeding through the green channel.

Conclusion: The petitioners were required to declare the jewellery, and failure to do so attracted the customs regime.

Issue (ii): whether confiscation of the jewellery and imposition of redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 were justified.

Analysis: Once the jewellery was found to be beyond the permissible baggage allowance and not covered by the exemption for bona fide baggage, it became liable to treatment as dutiable or prohibited for the purposes of the customs and foreign trade framework. The Court distinguished the Kerala High Court decision relied upon by the petitioners, holding that the present case was governed by the Baggage Rules, 2016 and not the earlier 1998 regime. It also noted that the conduct of the petitioners in attempting to pass through the green channel without declaration, coupled with the purchase and carriage of liquor beyond the permitted limits, supported the customs authorities' action. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no infirmity or perversity was found in the revisional order restoring confiscation, redemption fine and penalty.

Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the customs authorities' order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Jewellery worn by a foreign tourist is not exempt from declaration merely because it is worn on the person; if it exceeds the permissible baggage allowance, it must be declared and may be subjected to confiscation and penalty under the customs law.

---