TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2082
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icle/goods detained Total weight 1. Petitioner No. 1 Two Gold Chains 200 gms 2. Petitioner No. 2 Four Gold bangles 254 gms 3. Petitioner No. 3 One Gold Chain and Four Gold Bangles 354 gms 4. Pursuant to the said seizure, show cause notice dated 20th June, 2023 has been issued and the Order-in-Original has been passed on 15th May, 2024. The detained jewellery were recorded as having been disposed of in the Order-in-Original. However, ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the same have not been disposed of. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that all the three Petitioners are residents of Singapore and they are eligible passengers under the Baggage Rules, 2016 (hereinafter "the Rules"). 6. Heard ld. Counsels for the parties. The Court has also perused the documents placed on record. In the opinion of the Court, having considered the facts of the case and the documents placed on record, the detained jewellery clearly appears to be used personal gold items of the Petitioners. 7. In terms of Rule 2(vi) read with Rule 3 of the Rules, the Petitioner would be permitted clearance of articles, free of duty in their bona fide bag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 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 the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Ors. v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, (2017) 16 SCC 93, while considering the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter "the Act") read with the Baggage Rules, 1998, that were in force during the relevant period, held that it is not permissible to completely exclude jewellery from the ambit of 'personal effects'. The relevant paragraphs of the said order read as under: "13. Insofar as the question of violation of the provisions of the Act is concerned, we are of the opinion that the respondent herein did not violate the provisions of Section 77 of the Act since the necessary declaration was made by the respondent while passing through the green channel. Such declarations are deemed 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cluding jewellery. Therefore, its newness is of no consequence. The expression "new goods" in their original packing has to be understood in a pragmatic way." 9. 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 as inclusive of articles newly acquired as opposed to used personal articles of jewellery which may have been borne on the person while exiting the country or carried in its baggage. Thus, personal jewellery which is not found to have been acquired on an overseas trip and was always a used personal effect of the passenger would not be subject to the monetary prescriptions incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of the 2016 Rules. 16. This clearly appeals to reason bearing in mind the understanding of the respondents themselves and which was explained and highlighted in the clarificatory Circular referred to above. That Circular had come to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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." 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 are other iss....