Ranvir Sra v. Commissioner of Customs

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Ranvir Sra under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of one Rolex watch of the Petitioner seized by the Customs Department vide detention receipt bearing no. DR/INDEL4/30-11-2024/005529 dated 30th November, 2024.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner, that he is a Canadian citizen and an Overseas Citizen of India (hereinafter, ‘OCI’) card holder, whose Rolex watch was detained on 30th November, 2024. However, till date, no Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) has been issued to the Petitioner in this matter.

4. The Petitioner has placed on record photographs along with the invoice of the said watch dated 2nd October, 2023, to show that the same was part of his ‘personal effects’. The invoice of the said Rolex Watch would show that the purchase was made on 2nd October, 2023 in Canada itself.

5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 26th November, 2025, this Court directed the Customs Department to produce the Rolex watch of the Petitioner before the Court. The same has been produced today in a sealed box. It clearly appears to be a worn Rolex watch and not a new one.

6. Mr. Beriwal, ld. SSC upon instructions submits that the serial number of the watch matches with the invoice that is placed on record.

7. In any event, the Petitioner is a Canadian citizen and also an OCI Card holder and the Rolex watch seized from his is a ‘personal effect’.

8. The issue whether the Rolex Watch worn by a passenger would fall within the ambit of ‘personal effects’ under the Baggage Rules, 2016 has now been settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court as also this Court. The Supreme Court in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Ors. v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, [(2017) 16 SCC 93], while considering the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’) read with the Baggage Rules, 1998, that were in force during the relevant period, held that it is not permissible to completely exclude jewellery from the ambit of ‘personal effects’. The relevant paragraphs of the said order read as under:

per the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonisation of Customs Procedures (Kyoto 18-5-1973), a passenger going through the green channel is itself a declaration that he has no dutiable or prohibited articles. Further, a harmonious reading of Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules, 1998 read with Appendix E (2) (quoted above), the respondent was not carrying any dutiable goods because the goods were the bona fide jewellery of the respondent for her personal use and was intended to be taken out of India. Also, with regard to the proximity of purchase of jewellery, all the jewellery was not purchased a few days before the departure of the respondent from UK, a large number of items had been in use for a long period. It did not make any difference whether the jewellery is new or used. There is also no relevance of the argument that since all the jewellery is to be taken out of India, it was, therefore, deliberately brought to India for taking it to Singapore.Foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them and it is a prerequisite at the time of making endorsements on the passport. Therefore, bringing jewellery into India for taking it out with the passenger is permissible and is not liable to any import duty. * * * *

15. […] Also, from the present facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be inferred that the jewellery was meant for import into India on the basis of return ticket which was found to be in the possession of the respondent. Moreover, we cannot ignore the contention of the respondent that her parents at the relevant time were in Indonesia and she had plans of proceeding to Indonesia. Some of the jewellery items purchased by the respondent were for her personal use and some were intended to be left with her parents in Indonesia. The High Court has rightly held that when she brought jewellery of a huge amount into the country, the respondent did not seem to have the intention to smuggle the jewellery into India and to sell it off. Even on the examination of the jewellery for costing purposes, it has come out to be of Rs 25 lakhs and not Rs 1.27 crores as per DRI. The High Court was right in holding that it is not the intention of the Board to verify the newness of every product which a traveller brings with him as his personal effect. It is quite reasonable that a traveller may make purchases of his personal effects before embarking on a tour to India. It could be of any personal effect including jewellery.Therefore, its newness is of no consequence. The expression “new goods” in their original packing has to be understood in a pragmatic way.”

9. In Saba Simran v. Union of India &Ors., 2024:DHC:9155-DB, the Division Bench of this Court was seized with the issue of deciding the validity of the seizure of gold jewellery by the Customs Department from an Indian tourist. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are as under:

10. The above mentioned decision of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 011281 / 2025 titled Union of India &Ors. v. Saba Simran. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the said challenge, held as under: “1. Delay condoned.

2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and having gone through the materials on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.”