AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 808
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also her baggage and the detained jewellery, which she was wearing, was seized 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. 6,47,915.58/-. 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 21st December, 2023 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 Gulista Khatoon Y8003273 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, Gulista Khatoon 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 sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er way back when the detained jewellery were seized. It is normal practice, at least in our country, that women wear basic jewellery such as bangles as part of their personal effects. The same could not have been detained by the Customs Department only on the basis that the same was of 24 carat gold. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the owner of the goods or such person- (a) is given a notice in writing with the prior approval of the officer of Customs not below the rank of an Assistant 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 writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e time prescribed under Section 110 of Act, is a period of six months. However, subject to complying with the requirements therein, a further extension for a period of six months can be availed by the Customs Department for issuing the show cause notice. In this case, the one year period itself has elapsed, yet no Show Cause Notice has been issued. Reliance on the waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing notice is not permissible. Accordingly, the detention is untenable. 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 tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmissible 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 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 fe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "15. The expression 'jewellery' as it appears in Rule 2(vi) would thus have to be construed as inclusive of articles newly acquired as opposed to used personal articles of jewellery which may have been borne on the person while exiting the country or carried in its baggage. Thus, personal jewellery which is not found to have been acquired on an overseas trip and was always a used personal effect of the passenger would not be subject to the monetary prescriptions 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, ....