Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 26th May, 2025
ABHILASH MULLENTEVIDA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aman Yadav, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi, Advocate.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the detention of the Petitioners’ goods being, one silver gold chain and one gold kada, having a combined weight of approximately 149 grams. The said goods are stated to be seized by the Respondent authority on 26th October, 2023 vide Detention Receipt bearing No. 002943.
3. It is stated that the Petitioner is a regular resident of Bahrain though an Indian passport holder. His residence number in Bahrain is R25030614. On 26th October, 2023 the Petitioner was intercepted by the Customs officials at Terminal 3, IGI Airport New Delhi upon his arrival to Delhi from Bahrain. Further, on the said date, the Petitioner’s goods being one silver gold chain and one gold kada, having a combined weight of approximately 149 grams were detained vide Detention Receipt bearing No. 002943.
4. Vide the present petition, the Petitioner challenges the detention of his goods, one chain and one kada weighing 149 grams. It is the case of the Petitioner that though his goods were detained way back in October, 2023, no Show Cause Notice has been issued till date to the Petitioner.
5. The Court has considered the matter. Considering the timeline prescribed under Section 110 of the Customs Act, the detention would be completely illegal and would be contrary to law. No notice has also been issued till date and the maximum period of one year to issue notice under Section 110 of the Customs Act has also lapsed.
6. The Court has also perused the documents placed on record. In the opinion of the Court, having considered the facts of the case and the documents placed on record, the detained articles clearly appear to be used personal effects of the Petitioner.
7. In terms of Rule 2(vi) read with Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 (hereinafter, the ‘Rules’) the Petitioner would be permitted clearance of articles, free of duty in his bona fide baggage, including used personal effects. The relevant provisions of the Rules are extracted hereunder: “2(vi) “Personal effects” means things required for satisfying daily necessities but does not include jewellery. * * * *
3. Passenger arriving from countries other than Nepal, Bhutan or Myanmar:- An Indian resident or a foreigner residing in India or a tourist of Indian origin, not being an infant arriving from any country other than Nepal, Bhutan or Myanmar, shall be allowed clearance free of duty articles in his bona fide baggage, that is to say, - (a) used personal effects and travel souvenirs; and (b) articles other than those mentioned in Annexure-I, up to the value of fifty thousand rupees if these are carried on the person or in the accompanied baggage of the passenger: Provided that a tourist of foreign origin, not being an infant, shall be allowed clearance free of duty articles in his bona fide baggage, that is to say, (a) used personal effects and travel souvenirs; and (b) articles other than those mentioned in Annexure- I, up to the value of fifteen thousand rupees if these are carried on the person or in the accompanied baggage of the passenger: Provided further that where the passenger is an infant, only used personal effects shall be allowed duty free. Explanation.- The free allowance of a passenger under this rule shall not be allowed to pool with the free allowance of any other passenger. * * * *
5. Jewellery.- A passenger residing abroad for more than one year, or return to India, shall be allowed clearance free of duty in his bona fide baggage of jewellery upto a weight, of twenty grams with a value cap of fifty thousands rupees if brought by a gentleman passenger, or forty grams with a value cap of one lakh rupees if brought by a lady passenger. * * * * ANNEXURE–I (See Rules 3, 4 and 6)
1. Fire arms.
2. Cartridges of fire arms exceeding 50.
3. Cigarettes exceeding 100 sticks or cigars exceeding 25 or tobacco exceeding 125 gms.
4. Alcoholic liquor or wines in excess of two litres.
5. Gold or silver in any form other than ornaments.
6. Flat Panel (Liquid Crystal Display/Light-Emitting Diode/Plasma) television.”
8. The issue whether gold jewellery worn by a passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects under the Rules, has now been settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court as also this Court. The Supreme Court in 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:
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.”
11. This Court in Mr Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi, (2025:DHC:1162-DB), had the occasion to consider the relevant provisions of the Rules, as also the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. After analysing the same, this Court held as under:
12. Thus, it is now settled that the used jewellery worn by the passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects in terms of the Rules, which would be exempt from detention by the Customs Department.
13. Further, in the present case, the fact that no Show Cause Notice has been issued upon the Petitioner is also not in dispute. This Court, while deciding upon the issue of non-issuance of Show Cause Notice in various cases has held that once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a Show Cause Notice and afford a hearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed under Section 110 of The Customs Act, 1962, is a period of six months and subject to complying with the formalities, a further extension for a period of six months can be taken by the Department for issuing the show cause notice. In this case, since no show cause notice has been issued till date, the detention is therefore impermissible.
14. In view of the above discussion, the detention of the Petitioner’s detained articles is set aside and the same shall be released to the Petitioner /authorised signatory within four weeks, subject to verification.
15. The Petitioner may appear before the concerned official for appraisement of the detained article and shall thereafter collect it either in person or through an Authorised Representative, in which case, the detained article shall be released after receiving a proper email from the Petitioner or some form of communication that the Petitioner has no objection to the same being released to the concerned Authorised Representative.
16. With the undertaking of re-export, 50 % of the storage charges shall be paid. The Petitioner shall appear for appraisement before the Customs authorities on 05th June, 2025.
17. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 26, 2025/MR/rks