https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85705 HC ruled that gold bangles worn by a passenger returning to India do not constitute "baggage" under the Customs Act 1962 and Baggage Rules 2016. The court determined that the Rule's provision regarding articles "carried on the person" exceeds the scope of the parent Act and is ultra vires. The Parliament consciously excluded worn jewelry from customs provisions, and until legislative amendment, officers cannot detain passengers' worn gold under Baggage Rules. The court ordered release of petitioner's 10 bangles within 7 days, finding no concealment as they were openly worn. The ruling emphasized that delegated legislation cannot exceed parent Act's scope and must respect fundamental rights and customs. en-us Thu, 13 Feb 2025 08:36:21 +0530 Thu, 13 Feb 2025 08:36:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85705 HC ruled that gold bangles worn by a passenger returning to India do not constitute "baggage" under the Customs Act 1962 and Baggage Rules 2016. The court determined that the Rule's provision regarding articles "carried on the person" exceeds the scope of the parent Act and is ultra vires. The Parliament consciously excluded worn jewelry from customs provisions, and until legislative amendment, officers cannot detain passengers' worn gold under Baggage Rules. The court ordered release of petitioner's 10 bangles within 7 days, finding no concealment as they were openly worn. The ruling emphasized that delegated legislation cannot exceed parent Act's scope and must respect fundamental rights and customs. Highlights Customs Thu, 13 Feb 2025 08:36:21 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85705