TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2079
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, he was intercepted by the Customs Department. The Petitioner is stated to have been wearing a gold chain of 80 grams and a gold kada of 150 grams (hereinafter "the detained goods"), which were seized by the Customs Department. 4. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that no show cause notice had been issued and the impugned Order-in-Original was passed, which was challenged in appeal by the Petitioner. Vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has allowed release of the detained goods, subject to payment of custom duty along with redemption fine and penalty in the following terms: "ORDER 6.0 In light of discussions and findings as above, 1 allow the appeal partially against OIO No.1289/003390/26-12-2023/WH/2023-24 dated 11-03-2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi and order that the impugned goods "(I) One gold chain having purity 999, weight 80 grams, valued at Rs. 4,77,794/- (II) One gold kada having purity 999, weight 150 grams, valued at Rs. 8,95,863/- (Total value Rs. 13,73,657) be released after payment of redemption fine in total of Rs. 1,40,000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enger. * * * * 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." 7. The issue whether gold jewellery worn by a passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects under the Rules, has now been settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court as also this Court. The Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Ors. v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, (2017) 16 SCC 93, while considering the relevant provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s at the relevant time were in Indonesia and she had plans of proceeding to Indonesia. Some of the jewellery items purchased by the respondent were for her personal use and some were intended to be left with her parents in Indonesia. The High Court has rightly held that when she brought jewellery of a huge amount into the country, the respondent did not seem to have the intention to smuggle the jewellery into India and to sell it off. Even on the examination of the jewellery for costing purposes, it has come out to be of Rs 25 lakhs and not Rs 1.27 crores as per DRI. The High Court was right in holding that it is not the intention of the Board to verify the newness of every product which a traveller 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 decid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25) wherein the High Court was dealing with a case where the gold jewellery of a Sri Lankan tourist was seized by the Customs Department. The High Court after analysing various provisions of the Act and the Rules held that the said Rules would only apply to baggage and would not extend to any article "carried on the person" as mentioned in Rule 3 of the Rule. This Court in Makhinder Chopra (supra) having considered the above decision, observed as under: "19. Thus, it is now settled law that the Customs Officials are required to consider the facts of each case and apply their mind before detaining the goods of a tourist, either of Indian or foreign origin. The Customs Officials have to be conscious of the fact that personal effects including jewellery of tourists are protected by the law from detention and same cannot be detained in a mechanical manner." 11. Thus, it is now settled that the used jewellery worn by the passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects in terms of the Rules, which would be exempt from detention by the Customs Department. 12. In the facts of this case, a perusal of the impugned orders would show that the Petitioner has not been gi....