TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of approximately 149 grams. The said goods are stated to be seized by the Respondent authority on 26th October, 2023 vide Detention Receipt bearing No. 002943. 3. It is stated that the Petitioner is a regular resident of Bahrain though an Indian passport holder. His residence number in Bahrain is R25030614. On 26th October, 2023 the Petitioner was intercepted by the Customs officials at Terminal 3, IGI Airport New Delhi upon his arrival to Delhi from Bahrain. Further, on the said date, the Petitioner's goods being one silver gold chain and one gold kada, having a combined weight of approximately 149 grams were detained vide Detention Receipt bearing No. 002943. 4. Vide the present petition, the Petitioner challenges the detention of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed clearance free of duty articles in his bona fide baggage, that is to say, - (a) used personal effects and travel souvenirs; and (b) articles other than those mentioned in Annexure-I, up to the value of fifty thousand rupees if these are carried on the person or in the accompanied baggage of the passenger: Provided that a tourist of foreign origin, not being an infant, shall be allowed clearance free of duty articles in his bona fide baggage, that is to say, (a) used personal effects and travel souvenirs; and (b) articles other than those mentioned in Annexure-I, up to the value of fifteen thousand rupees if these are carried on the person or in the accompanied baggage of the passenger: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he '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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices 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 appears in the Appendices. This position, in our considered opinion, would continue to endure and remain unimpacted by the provisions contained in the 2016 Rules." 10. The above mentioned decision of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 011281 / 2025 titled Union of India & Ors. V. Saba Simran. The Supreme Court, while ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the issue of non-issuance of Show Cause Notice in various cases has held that once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a Show Cause Notice and afford a hearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed under Section 110 of The Customs Act, 1962, is a period of six months and subject to complying with the formalities, a further extension for a period of six months can be taken by the Department for issuing the show cause notice. In this case, since no show cause notice has been issued till date, the detention is therefore impermissible. 14. In view of the above discussion, the detention of the Petitioner's detained articles is set aside and the same shall be released to the Petitioner /authorised signatory within four weeks, sub....