2024 (12) TMI 755 - HC - Customs

Tourist's personal gold jewellery weighing 0.178 gms exempt from seizure under Baggage Rules 2016

Delhi HC quashed detention receipt for gold jewellery seized from tourist traveling from Azerbaijan to India. Court held that personal gold necklace and ... Personal effects - personal jewellery as ornaments - Proviso to Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 - Annexure-I exclusion: gold or silver in any form other than ornaments - tourist of foreign origin entitlement to duty free clearancePersonal effects - personal jewellery as ornaments - Proviso to Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 - Annexure-I exclusion: gold or silver in any form other than ornaments - Lawfulness of seizure and detention of 18 carat gold necklace and bracelet worn by a foreign tourist arriving in India. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the reasoning of the Coordinate Bench in Nathan Narayansamy and held that the Proviso to Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 governs tourists of foreign origin. That Proviso permits clearance free of duty of used personal effects and travel souvenirs, and Annexure I specifies only those items excluded from duty free allowance. Entry 5 of Annexure I proscribes 'gold or silver in any form other than ornaments.' Jewellery worn by a foreign tourist on arrival - here a necklace and bracelet - falls within the category of ornaments and therefore is not within the proscriptive entry. Rule 5, which relates to passengers returning after residence abroad for more than one year, is not applicable to a foreign tourist. On these grounds the detention and proposed seizure could not be sustained and the articles were ordered released subject to conditions imposed by the Court. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]Seizure proceedings and detention receipt quashed; personal gold jewellery to be released to the petitioner within one week, subject to personal collection and condition that the petitioner shall not sell the articles and shall carry them back to her country of origin.Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed; detention receipt quashed and seized personal gold jewellery (necklace and bracelet worn by the foreign tourist) ordered released forthwith subject to the Court's conditions. Issues:Challenge to seizure proceedings and detention receipt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for personal gold jewellery seized by Customs officials upon arrival at the airport.Analysis:The petitioner, an Azerbaijan national, arrived in India as a tourist and had 18 carat gold jewellery consisting of a necklace and a bracelet weighing 0.178 gms seized by Customs officials. The petitioner argued that her personal jewellery should not qualify for seizure under Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016. The petitioner sought the release of the goods and quashing of the detention receipt dated 4th November, 2024.The petitioner relied on a previous decision by a Coordinate Bench of the Court in a similar case to argue that personal effects and jewellery should not be considered prohibited goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent submitted that the goods were with the Customs warehouse and could be released after appraisal and subject to further orders by the Department.The Court examined the detention receipt and noted that the jewellery seized was described as gold jewellery weighing 0.178 gms, consisting of a necklace and a bracelet. The Court referred to the previous decision cited by the petitioner to establish that personal effects, especially ornaments, should be exempt from seizure for foreigners under the Baggage Rules, 2016.The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Baggage Rules, specifically Rule 3 and the Proviso to Rule 3, which allows duty-free clearance of articles for tourists of foreign origin. It was concluded that the jewellery seized from the petitioner fell under the category of ornaments and should not have been seized under Clause 5 of Annexure-I of the Baggage Rules.The Court further clarified that Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, which pertains to passengers returning to India after residing abroad for over a year, did not apply to the petitioner, a foreign national. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the seizure proceedings, and directed the return of the seized articles to the petitioner.In light of the previous judgment and the specific circumstances of the case, the Court determined that the petitioner's 18 carat gold jewellery should not have been seized. The detention receipt was quashed, and the Court ordered the release of the personal gold jewellery to the petitioner within a week, with the petitioner instructed to personally visit the Customs warehouse for retrieval and not to sell the articles.In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with all pending applications also being resolved.