TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 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 25th April, 2023. The office of the Commissioner has also given a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions 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 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld 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 the detained jewellery is part of personal effects, the Court is inclined to allow the present writ petition. 19. However, the detained jewellery has already been disposed of by the Customs Department. This Court in Gor Sharian vs. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:950-DB, was dealing with a sim....