TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tari. 2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner belongs to a Rajput family of Rajasthan but at the time of partition he stayed back in Pakistan. All his relatives are residents of Rajasthan. To attend the marriage of his close relative, on 5-2-2007 the petitioner along with his family members namely; wife, two daughters, one son and one relative reached Attari station. According to the petitioner, as per Appendix-E to the Baggage Rules 1998 (for short 'the Baggage Rules') any tourist coming from Pakistan to India can bring personal effects with the condition that the same are re-exported when the tourist leaves India. At the time of immigration check at Attari Station, the daughters of the petitioner were wearing five bangles, weighin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner also stated that even though the actual weight of the bangles was 267 gms but in the detention receipt the same was mentioned at 0.267 gms. Still further he submitted that there can never be any intention to smuggle gold from Pakistan to India and that too in such a small quantity as price of gold in Pakistan is higher than the price in India. In fact, the petitioner had come to attend the marriage of a relative and on that occasion, some jewellery was required to be worn by the daughters and wife of the petitioner. Even the detention receipt also mentions bangles five pieces. 4. In the reply filed, the respondent submitted that due to oversight the weight of the bangles has been wrongly mentioned in the Detention Receipt as 0.267 gm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erative to smuggle the same in India. The facts of the case clearly show that the action on the part of the respondent in detaining the bangles is clearly arbitrary. He further submitted the casualness and non-application of mind on the part of the respondent is evident from the fact that firstly the detention receipt shows that the goods have been detained for re-export out of India. When the goods were meant for re-export out of India at the time of return of the petitioner from India, there was no question of levy of any penalty for that but still a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) was shown to have been levied that too without passing any order as show cause notice was issued only on 27-4-07. The weight of the jewe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdiction, hence, liable to be set aside and a direction is required to be issued to the respondent to return the bangles to the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the gold in crude form could not be brought by the petitioner in his personal baggage and as the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) and also the Baggage Rules, the same was liable to confiscation for which a show cause notice has already been issued. However, he could not dispute that in Column-5 of the detention receipt, the reason for detention of goods, it was mentioned that same was for re-export out of India and the discrepancy about the recording of weight of the jeweller....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in totality, on the basis of material placed before this Court, we could not find that there was any material with the respondent to have formed an opinion that the gold bangles, being brought as part of the baggage by the petitioner, were not meant for personal use of the family. As discussed above, the family coming from Pakistan to India to attend marriage of a close relative having three lady members, the quantity was very small. It is even admitted by the respondent that the gold, which is stated to be in crude form, was in fact in the shape of bangles. The manner, in which the bangles are prepared or type of bangles one would like to wear, would certainly depend on the subjective satisfaction of the person concerned. Someone may lik....