TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring three gold bangles which she showed to the Customs officials. Thereafter, the Petitioner was asked to take them off and the said bangles were seized. A detention receipt was issued on the same date i.e., 13th March, 2024. 4. According to the Petitioner, the said gold bangles were part of the jewellery which she was wearing in the usual course and there was nothing special in the same. The Petitioner's three gold bangles weighed about 113 Kgs valued at about Rs. 7,42,410/- as per the detention receipt. After the gold bangles were seized, no show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner till date. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking return of the said gold bangles. 5. On 30th August, 2024, the Court had issued notice to the Respondents in this writ petition and a counter affidavit was sought. Submissions of the Parties 6. The Petitioner has filed written submissions and has relied upon various decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, including the judgement in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors. v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, (2017) 16 SCC 93, wherein the Court has considered jewellery to be part of personal effects. 7. Ld. Coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passenger under this rule shall not be allowed to pool with the free allowance of any other passenger. * * * * 5. Jewellery.-A passenger residing abroad for more than one year, or return to India, shall be allowed clearance free of duty in his bona fide baggage of jewellery upto a weight, of twenty grams with a value cap of fifty thousands rupees if brought by a gentleman passenger, or forty grams with a value cap of one lakh rupees if brought by a lady passenger. * * * * ANNEXURE-I (See Rules 3, 4 and 6) 1. Fire arms. 2. Cartridges of fire arms exceeding 50. 3. Cigarettes exceeding 100 sticks or cigars exceeding 25 or tobacco exceeding 125 gms. 4. Alcoholic liquor or wines in excess of two litres. 5. Gold or silver in any form other than ornaments. 6. Flat Panel (Liquid Crystal Display/Light-Emitting Diode/Plasma) television." 10. It can be seen from the said rules that a tourist of foreign origin is allowed clearance of articles free of duty as part of his baggage that are either his personal effects and travel souvenirs or are articles that are not prohibited, as mentioned in A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be implicit and devised with a view to facilitate expeditious and smooth clearance of the passenger. Further, as per the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonisation of Customs Procedures (Kyoto 18-5-1973), a passenger going through the green channel is itself a declaration that he has no dutiable or prohibited articles. Further, a harmonious reading of Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules, 1998 read with Appendix E (2) (quoted above), the respondent was not carrying any dutiable goods because the goods were the bona fide jewellery of the respondent for her personal use and was intended to be taken out of India. Also, with regard to the proximity of purchase of jewellery, all the jewellery was not purchased a few days before the departure of the respondent from UK, a large number of items had been in use for a long period. It did not make any difference whether the jewellery is new or used. There is also no relevance of the argument that since all the jewellery is to be taken out of India, it was, therefore, deliberately brought to India for taking it to Singapore. Foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is mean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....butted herewith and we hold that the respondent was entitled to import personal jewellery duty free. 17) In the facts and circumstances of this case, it will be just and proper to expunge the remarks against the appellant from the judgment passed by the High Court. Therefore, the strictures passed against the appellant are expunged. 18) In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was right in setting aside the show-cause notice dated 12.12.2002 and order dated 14.08.2003 passed by the competent authority. There is no scope to interfere in the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. There is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that the present conclusion is confined only to the disposal of this appeal." 15. In Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors., (2024:DHC:9155-DB) this Court was seized with the issue of deciding the validity of the seizure of gold jewellery by the Customs Department from an Indian tourist. The Court considered the ambit of 'personal effects' vis-à-vis jewellery under the Baggage Rules, in effect f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iated by the respondents themselves requiring the customs officers to bear a distinction between "personal jewellery" and the word "jewellery" when used on its own and as it appears in the Appendices. This position, in our considered opinion, would continue to endure and remain unimpacted by the provisions contained in the 2016 Rules." 16. A conspectus of the above decisions and provisions would lead to the conclusion that jewellery that is bona fide in personal use by the tourist would not be excluded from the ambit of personal effects as defined under the Baggage Rules. Further, the Department is required to make a distinction between 'jewellery' and 'personal jewellery' while considering seizure of items for being in violation of the Baggage Rules. Applicability of the Baggage Rules qua tourists of foreign origin 17. The issue of tourists of foreign origin coming to India with jewellery has been dealt with by this Court in various decisions, including in the following: i) Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs (supra); ii) Farida Aliyeva v. Commissioner of Customs, (2024:DHC:9533-DB) 18. In Nathan Narayansamy (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can be seen from the said detention receipt, no contact details of the Petitioner have been noted in the same and therefore, it is inexplicable as to how the Customs Department had intended to issue the show cause notice to the Petitioner without the contact details. 22. The present case is fully covered by the decision in Nathan Narayansamy (supra) and Farida Aliyeva (supra) as also Saba Simran (supra) as relied upon by the Petitioner. 23. It is also relevant to note the recent decision of this Court in Qamar Jahan v. Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors. (2025:DHC:174-DB), wherein the Court has taken into consideration the Baggage Rules and the various other cases where bona fide tourists and travellers could be put into difficulty in view of the Baggage Rules. The Court had directed as under: "11. On a query from the Court, Mr. Shubham Tyagi, ld. Counsel for the Customs Department, as also Mr. Harpreet Singh, ld. Counsel, who regularly appears for the Customs and is present in Court, have informed the Court, that if any traveller is coming from abroad and is carrying jewellery which is more than the value as prescribed in Rule 5 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arassment of genuine tourists and travellers, whether Indian or foreigners into India; (ii) that illegal smuggling of gold is properly curbed. 18. The values of gold that would be permissible under the Baggage Rules would also have to be re-looked by the CBIC as the same appears to be completely not in tune with the current market value of gold. 19. Let this matter be referred to the Chairman, CBIC for reconsideration of the Baggage Rules 2016. Let the re-consideration be undertaken in coordination with any other Departments or Ministries as may be required and the report be filed before this Court regarding the reconsideration and the manner thereof. The report shall be filed by the next date of hearing." 24. A perusal of the above discussion makes it clear that the Baggage Rules have to be interpreted in a manner that does not lead to unnecessary burden upon the tourist, being either of Indian or foreign origin. Accordingly, the term "personal effects" cannot exclude personal jewellery or ornaments, as is clear from a harmonious reading of the Baggage Rules. Conclusion and Directions 25. Considering the above discussion, the jewellery of the Pe....