TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mina 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 declare the passenger Shamina 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 Four Gold bangles having average purity 998 with gross and net weight 100 grams having Assessable value Rs. 6,27,900/- recovered from the Pax Shamina and detained vide DR No.DR/INDEL4/l 9.03.2024/004019 dated 19.03.2024 under section 111(d), 111 (i), 111 (j) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, I 962; iv) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) on the Pax Shamina under section 112 (a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, I 962." 3. The case of the Petitioner is that she is an Indian citizen, who had gone to Riyadh to meet her husband, who was working in Riyadh, and was wearing the said four gold bangles which formed part of her personal jewellery. Upon her arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant period. The Supreme Court clearly holds that it is not permissible to completely exclude jewellery from the ambit of 'personal effects'. Accordingly, the Court declared that the seized jewellery items therein were the bona fide jewellery of the tourist for her personal use and was intended to be taken out of India. The relevant extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court is also set out below:- "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 res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Conclusion: 16) We are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any facts on record about the nature and mode of concealment and also any finding of the lower authority that jewellery was kept in a way to evade detection on examination of the baggage, it has to be held that there was no concealment as such. It is seen that the respondent chose the Green Channel for clearance of her baggage. She committed no violation of law or infraction of any instruction for clearance of the baggage through the green channel as she being a tourist had no dutiable goods to declare under the Baggage Rules. The presumption that the jewellery found in her baggage cannot be considered as personal effects owing to its high monetary value is rebutted herewith and we hold that the respondent was entitled to import personal jewellery duty free. 17) In the facts and circumstances of this case, it will be just and proper to expunge the remarks against the appellant from the judgment passed by the High Court. Therefore, the strictures passed against the appellant are expunged. 18) In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 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 he 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, in our considered opinion, would continue to endure and remain unimpacted by the provisions contained in the 2016 Rules." 11. The above mentioned decision of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged before the Supreme ....