Baggage rules cannot enlarge the Customs Act, and confiscation based on coerced seizure records and weak hearing safeguards fails.

Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 was analysed against the Customs Act, 1962 and found to go beyond the parent statute to the extent it treats articles "carried on the person" as baggage. The text states that Section 79 authorises exemption only for bona fide baggage within the statutory definition, so a delegated rule cannot enlarge the field created by the Act. It also notes that confiscation based on contradictory seizure records, alleged coercion, and an unproven waiver of notice did not amount to real compliance with natural justice, making the confiscation order vulnerable to challenge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provision in Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 permitting articles "carried on the person" could be applied so as to treat jewellery worn by the passenger as baggage and justify seizure under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether the confiscation order was sustainable in view of the alleged absence of show cause notice and effective opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the provision in Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 permitting articles "carried on the person" could be applied so as to treat jewellery worn by the passenger as baggage and justify seizure under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers exemption for bona fide baggage and authorises rules only for articles in baggage. The definition of baggage under Section 2(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is confined to baggage and unaccompanied baggage. Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, by extending the allowance to articles "carried on the person", travels beyond the scope of the parent statute. The rule-making power cannot enlarge the statutory field, and a delegated rule inconsistent with the Act must yield to the Act.

Conclusion: The provision in Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 relating to articles "carried on the person" was held ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962 and could not be relied upon to sustain the seizure.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation order was sustainable in view of the alleged absence of show cause notice and effective opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The record disclosed serious inconsistency in the respondents' version as to how the jewellery was allegedly carried, and the Mahazar and confiscation proceedings were found to rest on false or contradictory statements. The petitioner's specific allegations of coercive seizure and forced signatures were not specifically denied. In that background, the purported waiver of notice and the claimed hearing opportunities were not accepted as affording real compliance with natural justice. The order was also found to have been passed on the basis of an unsustainable premise of baggage violation.

Conclusion: The confiscation order was held unsustainable and was quashed for violation of natural justice and factual infirmities in the seizure proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the confiscation order was set aside, and release of the detained goods was directed, with further departmental enquiry ordered against the officials concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated rule cannot enlarge the scope of the parent Act, and an order of confiscation founded on an ultra vires rule and passed without effective adherence to natural justice is liable to be quashed.

---