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 (6) TMI 557

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... seeking a direction to the Respondent-Commissioner of Customs to release the following goods (hereinafter 'gold items') of the Petitioners: • Two Metal Chain Pieces weighing 70 grams. • One metal kada weighing 45 grams. • Three Metal Chain Pieces weighing 70 grams. The same are stated to be detained by the Respondent Authority vide Detention Receipt bearing GC No. 3114 and 3115 dated 4th July, 2024. 3. A brief background of the present case is that the Petitioners were intercepted by the Customs Department on their arrival from Bangkok on 4th July, 2024. Further, the gold items of the Petitioners were detained by the Customs Department vide Detention Receipt bearing GC No. 3114 and 3115 dated 4t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cts 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: Provided further that where the passenger is an infant, only used personal effects shall be allowed duty fre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at 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 chan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t 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 p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 dismissing the said challenge, held as under: "1. Delay condoned. 2. Havin....