Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (5) TMI 2110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 17th August, 2023 has also been issued to the Petitioner. 4. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 27th March, 2025, the Court had heard the parties at length and it was submitted that the detained jewellery had been disposed of. In view thereof, the Court had passed the following order: "4. The Court has heard the matter at length. It appears that a Show Cause Notice has been issued by the Department in the matter on 7th August, 2023 and one silver coated metal kada made of gold having total weight of 250 gms valued at Rs. 12,54,750/- has also been disposed of. The stand of the Customs Department is that an intimation was given prior to the disposal of the gold. 5. Let the proof of intimation be placed on record on the next date of hearing. 6. In addition, the value of the gold which has been sold and the amount released shall also be placed on record." 5. Today, Mr. Singla, ld. Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Customs Department, has placed on record the proof of intimation of the sale of the detained jewellery. As per the same, sale of the detained jewellery was duly communicated to the Petitioner through the Embassy vide letter dated 25t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 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." 8. The issue whether gold jewellery worn by a passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects under the Rules, has now bee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... inferred that the jewellery was meant for import into India on the basis of return ticket which was found to be in the possession of the respondent. Moreover, we cannot ignore the contention of the respondent that her parents 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 consequen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oms 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 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." 12. At this stage it would be relevant to consider the decision of the Madras High Court in Thanushika vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai), W.P. No. 5005/2024 (decided on 31st January, 2025) 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t sustain the seizure of the articles in question. 5. While learned counsel for the respondent had also drawn our attention to Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, we note that the same pertains to a passenger who is returning to India after having resided abroad for more than one year. That would clearly not apply to the petitioner here who is undisputedly a foreign national. Rule 5 in any case appears to be relating to an "eligible passenger" and which pertain to an Indian national upon his return to the country after having lived abroad for the period prescribed." 17. Thus, in Nathan Narayansamy (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has clearly held that the Baggage Rules would have limited application to foreign nationals. Further, this Court in Anjali Pandey vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:372-DB and Makhinder Chopra (supra), has also directed release of the jewellery seized from a tourist of foreign origin relying on the decisions discussed hereinabove. 18. It is an undisputed fact that the Petitioner is a Thai passport holder. In view of the law discussed above, on the ground of limited applicability of the Rules to the tourist of foreign origin and as th....