2025 (11) TMI 1124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....age purposes. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that no show cause notice has been issued till date. 4. The Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3489/2024 titled Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahujawhich reads as under: "17. It is difficult for us also to subscribe to the views expressed by the Bombay High Court in Jayant Hansraj Shah's case (supra). We are of the view that the only power that has been conferred upon the Revenue to extend the time period is in accordance with the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act, 1962. The Delhi High Court is right in saying that any effort to say that the release under Section 110A of the Act, 1962 would extinguish the opera....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....viso also requires the higher authority to inform this to the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period of six months mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 110. We find that in respect of the seized car, there is neither any notice under clause (a) of section 124 issued to the respondent within six months of the seizure nor the period of six months ever came to be extended for a further period of six months. In the absence of there being any notice as required by the first proviso even within the extended period upto one year, the consequence that ought to follow is release of the seized car. [...] 24. The appeals before us are all anterior in time to the coming into force of the second prov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7. From the above averments, it is clear that the detained jewellery is a personal effect of the Petitioner which was purchased in India itself and it was not an imported product. 8. Further, the issue whether gold jewellery worn by a passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects under the Rules, has now been settled by various decisions of the Supreme 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng it to Singapore. Foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them and it is a prerequisite at the time of making endorsements on the passport. Therefore, bringing jewellery into India for taking it out with the passenger is permissible and is not liable to any import duty. * * * * 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....