TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2027
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uary, 2024. 3. The Petitioner is an Indian passport holder who was travelling from Dubai to India on 20th February, 2024 and upon arriving at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi he was intercepted by the Customs Department. The Petitioner was wearing one gold chain of 60 grams (hereinafter "the detained jewellery") which has been detained at the Customs Department. 4. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that till date no Show Cause Notice has been issued. In addition, the detained jewellery is stated to be personal jewellery of the Petitioner in terms of the Baggage Rules, 2016 (hereinafter "the Rules"). 5. Heard the ld. Counsels for the parties. The Court has also perused the documents placed on record. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccompanied baggage of the passenger: Provided further that where the passenger is an infant, only used personal effects shall be allowed duty free. Explanation.-The free allowance of a 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raveller brings with him as his personal effect. It is quite reasonable that a traveller may make purchases of his personal effects before embarking on a tour to India. It could be of any personal effect including jewellery. Therefore, its newness is of no consequence. The expression "new goods" in their original packing has to be understood in a pragmatic way." 8. In Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors., 2024:DHC:9155-DB, the Division Bench of 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 relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are as under: "15. The expression 'jewellery' as it appears in Rule 2 (vi) would thus have to be construed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aving heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and having gone through the materials on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of." 10. This Court in Mr Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi, 2025:DHC:1162-DB, had the occasion to consider the relevant provisions of the Rules, as also the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. After analysing the same, this Court held as under: "17. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xempt from detention by the Customs Department. 13. In view of the above and considering the facts of the case, it is clear that the detained jewellery are the personal effects of the Petitioner. 14. The detained jewellery being personal effects of the Petitioner, the detention of the same itself would be contrary to law. Accordingly, the detained jewellery would be liable to be released on this ground itself. However, there is another issue that is required to be considered in the present matter i.e., non-issuance of the SCN within the prescribed period under the Act. 15. It is settled law that once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a show cause notice and afford a personal hearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed u....