TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel for the Petitioner that the detained jewellery was being worn by the Petitioner and the same is a personal effect under the Baggage Rules, 2016 (hereinafter "the Rules"). In addition it is submitted that the Petitioner being a foreign national the Rules would have limited applicability. 5. It is also stated that no Show Cause Notice has been issued to the Petitioner till date and despite this position, the Petitioner is being made liable to pay the warehousing/storage charges. 6. Heard the 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 appear to be used personal gold items of the Petitioner. 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 baggage, including used personal effects. The relevant provisions of the Rules are extracted hereunder: "2 (vi) "Personal effects" means things required for satisfying daily necessities but does not include jewellery. * * * * 3. Passenger arriving from coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....998, 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant 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 be issued at a time when the Appendices to the 1998 Rules had employed the phrase "used personal effects, excluding jewellery". The clarification is thus liable to be appreciated in the aforesaid light and the statutory position as enunciated 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al 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 issues that are required to be considered in the present matter i.e., limited applicability of Rules qua a foreign national and non-issuance of the SCN within the prescribed period under the Act. 16. Insofar as the issue of limited applicability of Rules qua a foreign national is concerned, this Court has considered the said issue in several cases including Nathan Narayansamy vs. Commissioner of Customs, W.P.(C) 6855/2023. In Nathan Narayansamy (supra) th....