Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking seeking to quash the order of the Joint Commissioner of Customs(‘JCC’) wherein the petitioner was penalised for carrying gold jewellery in her baggage through the non-dutiable customs line of the airport, the division bench of Yashwant Verma and Ravinder Dudeja*, JJ., quashed the impugned order and held that personal jewellery of the passenger will not be subject to the monetary prescriptions under Rules 3 and 4 of the (‘the 2016 Rules’).
Background
The petitioner had travelled from Bengaluru to Dubai to shoot her film. Upon her return, she was intercepted by a customs officer after she had crossed the green channel, a channel which is for passengers not having any dutiable or prohibited goods, at Delhi International Airport. On her search, one plastic box containing three gold bangles, weighing 130 grams, and fifteen gold beads (parts of bracelets), weighing 89 grams, were recovered. The recovered goods were detained vide detention receipt dated 25-05-2023 . Consequently, the JJC passed the impugned detention order dated 21-09-2023 wherein ‘Free Allowance’ was denied to the petitioner since she did not disclose the goods to the Proper Officer at Red Channel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted her and a penalty of Rs. 1,20,000 was imposed on her under Section of the (‘the Act’).
Analysis
The Court observed that the Customs Authority has determined that the quantity and valuation limits under the apply to all incoming passengers, regardless of whether the jewellery and ornaments they carry are intended for “import” or were merely “acquired” as personal items or personal effects. According to the Customs Authority, all jewellery and ornaments, whether personal or otherwise will be treated as prohibited goods and subjected to the restrictions outlined in the 2016 Rules.
The Court stated that although the Act defines the word ‘import’ as the act of bringing an article into India from a place outside, the phrase ‘bringing into’ cannot possibly be construed to apply to “personal effects”. The phrase ‘bringing into’ connotes an article acquired and being sought to be brought into India, thus crossing customs boundaries and becoming eligible for the levy of customs duty. The Court stated that if the expression “personal effects” is considered, it would include all items carried by an incoming passenger for satisfying daily necessities. That phrase could include jewellery and ornaments which are personal items. Since these items are borne on the person or the baggage of that passenger, they would not constitute import. Stating the aforesaid, the Court opined that the quantitative restrictions under Rules 3 and 4 of the 2016 Rules clearly apply to articles that are sought to be imported, thus, items that are personal in nature would not be subjected to these prescriptions.
The Court examined the legislative history of the 2016 Rules by analyzing the Baggage Rules, 1998, the Customs Circular dated 24-09-1998, and the Baggage (Amendment) Rules, 2006 and upon perusal stated that the expression ‘jewellery’ under Rule 2(vi) would have to be construed as inclusive of articles newly acquired instead of used personal articles of jewellery borne on the person or carried in their baggage. Thus, the Court held that 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 the monetary prescriptions under Rules 3 and 4 of the 2016 Rules. The Court further held that this position is in line with the statutory position as enunciated by the State itself which requires the customs officers to distinguish between “personal jewellery” and the word “jewellery” when used on its own and as it appears in the Appendices. This position, the Court opined, would continue to endure and remain unimpacted by the 2016 Rules.
In this regard, the Court also referred to the cases of Pushpa Lakhumal Tulani v. Add. Commissioner, Customs, , Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, , and Vigneswaran Sethuraman v. Union of India, .
Testing the impugned order on the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the Court held that the JCC had misconstrued the scheme as well as the objectives of the 2016 Rules and quashed the impugned order deeming it unsustainable.
[Saba Simran v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3612 of 2024, decided on 27-11-2024]
*Authored by Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Vishal Tiwari and Kumari Nidhi Tripathi
For the respondent: Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC and Chandan Prajapati
The post appeared first on .