TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 939
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led by the Petitioner-Agya Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of one gold chain, weighing 115 grams seized by the Respondent vide detention receipt bearing no. DR/INDEL4/11-11-2022/000828 dated 11th November 2022. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that he was traveling from Bangkok to New Delhi on 11th November, 2022. Upon his arrival at the IGI Airport, New Delhi, his gold chain weighing 115 grams which he is stated to have been wearing was detained by the Customs Department. The detention receipt was issued to the Petitioner however, no appraisal of the gold chain has been done till date. Moreover, no Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, 'SCN') has been issued to the Petitioner. 5. Mr. Parmin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving 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 ef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court as also this Court. The Supreme Court in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Ors. v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, [(2017) 16 SCC 93], while considering the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, the '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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... * * * * 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 basis of return ticket which was found to be in the 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 Indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 contain....