TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ized by the Customs Department. 4. Thereafter, the detained jewellery was apprised in the presence of the advocate of the Petitioner and the total value of the bangles was appraised at Rs. 6,94,715.58/-. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that no show cause notice had been issued with respect to the detained jewellery and no opportunity for personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner. 6. Thereafter, an Order in Original dated 18th January, 2024 was passed, directing absolute confiscation of the detained jewellery of the Petitioner in the following terms: "I. I deny the 'Free Allowance' if any, admissible to the Pax Mubina for not declaring the detained goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted her and recovered the detained goods from her; II. I hold the passenger, Mubina an "ineligible Passenger" for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended); III. I order absolute confiscation of the above said "Two gold bangles having purity 999, total weighing 117.00 valued at Rs. 6,94,715.58/- " recovered from the Pax Mubina and d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al effects. The same could not have been detained by the Customs Department only on the basis that the same were of 24 carat gold, unless any other special circumstances exist for such detention. 11. It is noted that no show cause notice has been issued in this case as the Customs Department is relying on the standard pre-printed waiver that was obtained from the Petitioner. The validity of such pre-printed waiver of SCN and personal hearing has been considered by this Court in various matters, including in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:751-DB and Mr Makhinder Chopra vs Commissioner of Customs New Delhi, 2025:DHC:1162-DB. The operative portion of the judgement in Amit Kumar (supra) is as under: "16. A perusal of Section 124 of the Act along with the alleged waiver which is relied upon would show that the oral SCN cannot be deemed to have been served in this manner as is being alleged by the Department. If an oral SCN waiver has to be agreed to by the person concerned, the same ought to be in the form of a proper declaration, consciously signed by the person concerned. Even then, an opportunity of hearing ought to be afforded, inasmuch as, the person concern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stant Commissioner of Customs, informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty; (b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter: Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may, at the request of the person concerned be oral. Provided further that notwithstanding issue of notice under this section, the proper officer may issue a supplementary notice under such circumstances and in such manner as may be prescribed." 25. A perusal of the above Section would show that the principles of natural justice have to be followed by the Customs Department before detention of the goods. The Section provides a three-fold requirement: i) a notice in writing informing the grounds of confiscation; ii) An opportunity of making a representation in writing against the said grounds of confiscation; iii) A reasonable opportunity of personal hearin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notice. In this case, the one year period itself has elapsed, yet no show cause notice has been issued. Accordingly, the detention is impermissible. 15. Further, in so far as personal effects are concerned, in terms of Rule 2(vi) read with Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 (hereinafter, the "the 2016 Rules") the Petitioner would be permitted clearance of articles, free of duty in their bona fide baggage, including 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 passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eemed 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 channel is itself a declaration that he has no dutiable or prohibited articles. Further, a harmonious reading of Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules, 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of the 2016 Rules. 16. This clearly appeals to reason bearing in mind the understanding of the respondents themselves and which was explained and highlighted in the clarificatory Circular referred to above. That Circular had come to be issued at a time when the Appendices 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." 18. 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 g....