Thailand Resident did not Conceal Gold Jewellery on Arrival: Delhi HC Holds Customs’ Confiscation, Duty and Penalty lacks Legal Foundation [Read Order]
The Delhi High Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority, holding that it lacked legal foundation.
The Delhi High Court held that the Thailand resident wearing gold jewellery, in the absence of concealment, does not violate the Baggage Rules, and further held that the order of confiscation, customs duty and the penalty imposed by the Customs Department lacks legal foundation.
The petitioner, Luvleen Maingi, is a Foreign National of Indian Origin and a resident of Thailand. He arrived in India from Bangkok on 25.04.2014. After crossing the green channel, Customs officials inquired whether he was carrying any dutiable goods, to which he replied in the negative.
The Indian customs declaration form signed by the petitioner declared that no dutiable goods were carried by him. Upon his personal search, a gold chain and a gold kara valued at ₹13,12,861 were recovered.
The customs Department seized the gold chain and kara as per section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the petitioner did not provide any document regarding possession of the jewellery. An order was passed on 31.03.2015 confiscating the gold chain and kara
However, the petitioner was given an option to redeem the confiscated goods upon payment of a fine of ₹2,00,000 and payment of applicable customs duty at the rate of 36.05%. A penalty of ₹1,25,000 was also imposed on the petitioner
The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Order-in-Appeal was passed in favor of the petitioner and directed the customs department to return the jewellery.
The Order-in-Appeal was challenged before the Additional Secretary to the Government of India and upon revision, the order in appeal was set aside and the original order was restored, leading to the present writ.
The petitioner’s counsel, D.S. Chadha, contended that the petitioner is the owner of the gold jewellery and the jewellery was purchased by the petitioner’s wife from M/s. Shagun Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Paschim Vihar vide Invoice no. 4329 dated 21.04.2021 paid through the NRI account maintained in Canara Bank.
Anil Soni, the respondent counsel, contended that the petitioner had not made any declaration of the jewellery in the Declaration form and had attempted to clear the jewellery from customs clandestinely, thereby violating section 77 of the Customs Act.
Also Read:Big Relief for Non-Profits: New Merger Rules Slash Tax Burden from 2026
It was submitted that Gold is not freely imported in the baggage. The claim of the petitioner that he had purchased the gold from India and taken it to Bangkok was also opposed as the petitioner had not obtained any export certificate.
Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, noted in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and others vs. Pushpa Lekhumal Tulani, (2017), it was held held that the respondent tourist committed no violation of law or any instruction for clearance of baggage through the green channel, as tourists had no dutiable goods to declare under the Baggage Rules.
In light of the facts and circumstances, the Court noted that the petitioner had not concealed the jewellery and held that the Original Authority and the Revisional Authority had misconstrued the objective of the Baggage Rules.
Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority and held that the order of confiscation, customs duty, and penalty imposed was without any legal foundation.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
