Loading...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2026 (9) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....weighing 58 grams vide Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/28-06-2023/002115 dated 28.06.2023 and a consequential direction for return of the aforesaid article. The Petitioner has also prayed for waiver of warehouse and handling charges. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. 4. The Petitioner arrived at Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from the United Arab Emirates on 28.06.2023. According to the contemporaneous record placed before this Court, after the Petitioner had crossed the Green Channel, she was intercepted by the Customs authorities. During the course of examination, one yellow metal chain appearing to be gold and weighing 58 grams was recovered from her possession. 5. The aforesaid article was detained vide Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/28-06-2023/002115 dated 28.06.2023. The reason recorded in the Detention Receipt is "Green Channel Violation". The article has been described therein as "ONE YELLOW METAL CHAIN MADE TO BE GOLD", weighing 58 grams. Significantly, the value of the article was recorded as being "TO BE APPRAISED". ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt with regard to issuance of notice is not complied with within the prescribed period, the concerned goods are liable to be returned. 10.3 Further reliance was also placed upon the decision of this Court in Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors. in support of the contention that genuine personal jewellery may constitute personal effects and may not be liable to be treated in the same manner as goods imported for commercial purposes. 10.4 It was lastly contended that continued retention of the article without completion of the proceedings violates the Petitioner's rights, including the constitutional protection under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner also seeks waiver of the warehouse and handling charges allegedly accruing on account of the continued retention of the article. 11. Contentions on behalf of the Respondent 11.1 Per contra, it was submitted that the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on account of material non-disclosure, delay and laches. It was submitted that the Petitioner's entire case has been presented without disclosing her own statement tendered under Section 108 of the Act on 28.06.2023. According to the Responden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is necessary to observe that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and equitable in nature. A person invoking such jurisdiction is expected to approach the Court with reasonable promptitude and to place before the Court the complete and material factual record necessary for an appropriate adjudication of the controversy. 14. In the present case, the incident occurred on 28.06.2023. The present Writ Petition was instituted on 21.01.2026, i.e., approximately 938 days thereafter. 15. The Petitioner has sought to explain the delay by asserting that the cause of action continued on account of the alleged failure of the Customs authorities to issue the requisite Show Cause Notice and that she had approached the Department but was asked to wait for further communication. 16. However, the aforesaid assertion is conspicuously devoid of particulars. The Petition does not disclose the date or dates on which the Petitioner allegedly approached the Customs authorities. No name or designation of any officer has been furnished. More importantly, no contemporaneous representation, letter, email, acknowledgment or oth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the writ petition. The complete factual and procedural record has necessarily to be taken into consideration. 25. The Petitioner's principal assertion is that the article was her "used personal jewellery" and was, therefore, a bona fide personal effect. However, this assertion itself raises questions which cannot be conclusively answered merely on the basis of the Petitioner's description of the article. 26. The contemporaneous Detention Receipt describes the article as one yellow metal chain appearing to be gold, weighing 58 grams. The value of the article was specifically recorded as being "to be appraised". Thus, the contemporaneous record itself demonstrates that the nature and value of the article were yet to be finally determined through the appropriate process. 27. The Respondent disputes the Petitioner's claim that the article has been conclusively established to be an old and used personal effect. The Respondent has also raised questions regarding the Petitioner's eligibility and compliance with the applicable baggage and Customs requirements. 28. Whether the article was genuinely an old personal effect, whether it was liable to be treated in a particular ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oviso to Section 124 of the Act and the procedure allegedly adopted contemporaneously. 35. This Court does not consider it necessary, in the facts of the present case, to return any final or abstract finding on the larger question as to the precise legal effect of every part of the aforesaid statement for all purposes under Sections 110 and 124 of the Act. Suffice it to observe that the Petitioner's entitlement to an unconditional writ of release cannot be determined by suppressing or omitting this material contemporaneous record and by inviting the Court to proceed only upon the subsequent version set out in the Writ Petition. 36. The decision in Jatin Ahuja (supra), therefore, does not assist the Petitioner in obtaining, as a matter of course, the unconditional relief sought in the present proceedings without examination of the complete factual and procedural record. 37. Similarly, reliance upon the decision of this Court in Saba Simran (supra) does not advance the Petitioner's case to the extent contended. Whether an article constitutes genuine personal jewellery or a bona fide used personal effect necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular c....