TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ranted. 4. Ms. Anushree Narain, ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for Respondent submits that an Order-in-Original has been passed in this case on 01st August, 2024. The same has been handed over to the Court today. Let it be taken on record. A perusal of the said Order-in-Original dated 1st August, 2024, would show that the standard pre-printed waiver of SCN and personal hearing has been stated to be signed by the Petitioner. The relevant paragraphs of the order-in-original are set out below: "2. The passenger Ms Vavvo holding Indian passport No. B8149099 (hereinafter referred as 'the Pax') arrived at IGI Airport Terminal-3, New Delhi by flight SV-756 dated 11.02.2024 and opted for Green Channel. She was intercepted by the Customs Officer after she had already crossed the Green Channel and after her personal and baggage search "Two yellow metal bangles weighing 115 grams" were found in her possession and were detained vide Detention Receipt (DR) No. DR/INDEL4/11.02.2024/003759 dated 11.02.2024 with remark Green Channel violation. 3. The Pax in her statement dated 11.02.2024 tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 interalia stated that she was intercepted by the Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee Allowance", if any, adınissible to the Pax Ms. Vavvo for not declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Chamel who intercepted her and recovered the detained goods from her. ii) I declare the passenger Ms Vavvo as an "ineligible Passenger" for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended). iii) I order absolute confiscation of Two Gold bangles having average purity 996 with gross and net weight 115 grams having Assessable value Rs. 6,85,486/- recovered from the Pax Ms Vavvo and detained vide DR No. DR/INDEL4/11.02.2024/003759 dated 11.02.2024 under section 111 (d), 111 (i), 111 (j) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962; iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only) on the Pax Ms Vavvo under section 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962." 6. After having perused the matter, it is clear that the non-issuance of the SCN would go to the root of the matter. The pre-printed standard waiver of SCN is contrary to law as it violates the basic principles of natural justice. Moreover, in the cases of Mr M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uding 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 countries other than Nepal, Bhutan or Myanmar:-An Indian resident or a foreigner residing in India or a tourist of Indian origin, not being an infant arriving from any country other than Nepal, Bhutan or Myanmar, 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 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: Provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 of purchase of jewellery, all the jewellery was not purchased a few days before the departure of the respondent from UK, a large number of items had been in use for a long period. It did not make any difference whether the jewellery is new or used. There is also no relevance of the argument that since all the jewellery is to be taken out of India, it was, therefore, deliberately brought to India for taking it to Singapore. Foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them and it is a prerequisite at the time of making endorsements on the passport. Therefore, bringing jewellery into India for taking it out with the passenger is permissible and is not liable to any import duty. * * * * 15. [...] Also, from the present facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be inferred that the jewellery was meant for import into India on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us 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 dismissing the said challenge, held as under: "1. Delay condoned. 2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and having gone through the materials on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of." 11. This Court in Mr Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi, 2025:DHC:1162-DB, had the occasion to consider the relevant provisions of the Rules, as also the decisio....