Customs baggage rules do not justify confiscation of worn personal jewellery absent concealment.

Gold jewellery worn on a foreign passenger's body was treated as personal baggage rather than concealed import under the customs and baggage regime. The court found that the gold chain and kara were not brought in a clandestine manner, and the authorities had misapplied the governing rules. As the case did not involve concealment attracting confiscatory action, the seizure, confiscation, customs duty demand, and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of gold jewellery worn by a foreign passenger on his body, along with the consequential customs duty and penalty, was sustainable under the customs and baggage regime.

Analysis: The relevant scheme treated baggage and passenger declarations differently from concealed import. The passenger was a foreign national who wore the gold chain and kara on his body while arriving in India, and the articles were not found to have been brought in a concealed manner. The Court followed the principles earlier applied to personal jewellery in baggage matters and held that the authorities had misconstrued the baggage rules and the governing statutory framework. On the facts, the impugned seizure, confiscation, duty demand, and penalty could not be sustained because the case was not one of clandestine import or concealment attracting confiscatory action.

Conclusion: The confiscation, customs duty, and penalty were held unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the petitioner.

---