The Delhi High Court recently noted that 3 gold bangles would have been worn by the petitioner as a part of her personal effects, and there was no requirement to declare the same.
The writ petitioner, Anjali Pandey, who is a Thai national, travelled from Delhi to Thailand on 13-03-24 and was asked to take off the 3 gold bangles she was wearing, which were seized by the customs official on her arrival at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.
It was submitted by the petitioner that the gold bangles were part of the jewelry that she was wearing in the usual course like daily wear.
Sadly, no show-cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner to date.
The petitioner relied on the judgement of Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs, W.P.(C) 6855/2023 in which the Delhi High Court held that gold being part of the personal effects of the tourist of foreign origin could not have been seized by the Customs Department.
Boost Your Business with SME IPO Funding Strategies – Enroll Now
The bench observed that in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors. v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani,(2017) 16 SCC 93, the apex court had held 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 were intended to be taken out of India.
The bench by referring to the precedents, reached a valid conclusion that the jewellery that is bona fide in personal use by the tourist would not be excluded from the ambit of personal effects as defined under the Baggage Rules.
The bench noted that the 3 gold bangles would have been worn by the petitioner as a part of her personal effects, and there was no requirement to declare the same.
The Delhi High Court also held that “the Baggage Rules have to be interpreted in a manner that does not lead to an unnecessary burden upon the tourist, being either of Indian or foreign origin. Accordingly, the term “personal effects” cannot exclude personal jewellery or ornaments, as is clear from a harmonious reading of the Baggage Rules. “
Boost Your Business with SME IPO Funding Strategies – Enroll Now
The bench directed the Customs department to release the 3 gold bangles within 2 weeks to the petitioner. The HC also held that the petitioner may collect seized gold bangles or monetary compensation in person from the Customs Department, depending on the situation.
The judgement was concluded by Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma by directing the Customs to follow this decision in all cases where jewellery is seized or detained from tourists of either Indian or foreign origin
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
