Delhi High Court
Govind Vennankot Chandrasekharan vs Assistant Commissioner Of Customs on 27 March, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 27th March, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 2568/2025 & CM APPL. 12162/2025
GOVIND VENNANKOT CHANDRASEKHARAN .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kavitha K.T., Mr. Subash K
Chandhran, Mr. Sharat Gopal, Mr.
Syam Krishnan K, Mr. Akash Awana
and Meenal Pandagare, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC CBIC with
Ms. Supriya Juneja and Ms. Arya
Suresh Nair, Advocates.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India inter alia seeking setting aside of the impugned Order in Original dated
07th November, 2024 wherein the goods being one gold kada and two gold
chains were confiscated and redemption was allowed subject to payment of
Rs. 70,000/-.
3. The brief background of the present petition is that the Petitioner is an
Indian Passport holder with a residency permit in United Arab Emirates
(hereinafter 'UAE'). He and his family live in UAE as he is employed there.
The Petitioner travelled to India along with his family on 09th April, 2024 to
attend a marriage in Kerala. They were crossing the Green Channel when they
were stopped by an Official of the Customs Department, and their personal
gold ornaments were detained. Details of the same are as under:
SL. DESCRIPTION AND NUMBER OF GROSS WEIGHT IN
NO. GOODS GRAMS
1 ONE GOLD KADA 41 grams
2 TWO GOLD CHAINS 44 grams
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the jewellery were his personal effects
which he used to wear regularly and was carrying with him for wearing in the
wedding.
5. According to the Petitioner, no show cause notice was issued to him
after the detention. The Petitioner only received the order in original dated
07th November, 2024 directly. The jewellery is also stated to be of
sentimental value to the Petitioner. In terms of the said order, for redemption
of the confiscated goods, a fine of Rs. 70,000/- along with penalty of Rs.
53,000/- has been imposed upon the Petitioner. No personal hearing is stated
to have been granted. As per the said order redemption of the detained goods
were allowed only within 120 days of issuance of this order under Section
125(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Mr. Aditya Singla, who is present in Court, is requested to accept notice
on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
7. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that tourists and travellers of this
nature ought not to be subjected to harassment by the Customs Officials,
especially in respect of personal jewellery and personal effects.
8. In Saba Simran v. Union of India & Ors., (2024:DHC:9155-DB) the
Court decided the validity of the seizure of gold jewellery by the Customs
Department from an Indian tourist. The Court considered the ambit of
'personal effects' vis-à-vis jewellery under the Baggage Rules, in effect from
time to time. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are as under:
"13. When the 2016 Rules ultimately came to be
promulgated, Rule 2(vi) specifically introduced a
definition with respect to "personal effects". As noticed in
the preceding parts of this judgment, Rule 2(vi) while
defining "personal effects" explicitly excludes items of
jewellery. The word 'jewellery' as it now appears in that
definition clause must necessarily be read in conjunction
with the previous versions of the Baggage Rules which
operated from time to time as well as the clarificatory
Circular referred to above. However, both Rules 3(a) as
well as 4(b) employ the phrase "used personal effects" and
which expression existed even in the prior versions of the
rules and have been noticed hereinabove.
14. Rule 2(vi) of the 2016 Rules essentially adopts the same
concept of 'used personal effects' as was intended under
the 1998 Rules, and by way of abundant caution, a
definition now stands placed in the 2016 Rules and which
purports to define the expression "personal effects" with
sufficient clarity. However, the same would not detract
from the distinction which the respondents themselves
acknowledged in the Circular and intended customs
officers to bear in mind the distinction which must be
recognised to exist when construing and identifying
'personal jewellery' as opposed to 'jewellery' per se.
15. The expression 'jewellery' as it appears in Rule 2(vi)
would thus have to be construed as inclusive of articles
newly acquired as opposed to used personal articles of
jewellery which may have been borne on the person while
exiting the country or carried in its baggage. Thus,
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 incorporated in Rules 3 and 4
of the 2016 Rules.
16. This clearly appeals to reason bearing in mind the
understanding of the respondents themselves and which
was explained and highlighted in the clarificatory Circular
referred to above. That Circular had come to be issued at
a time when the Appendices to the 1998 Rules had
employed the phrase "used personal effects, excluding
jewellery". The clarification is thus liable to be
appreciated in the aforesaid light and the statutory
position as enunciated by the respondents themselves
requiring the customs officers to bear a distinction
between "personal jewellery" and the word "jewellery"
when used on its own and as it appears in the Appendices.
This position, in our considered opinion, would continue
to endure and remain unimpacted by the provisions
contained in the 2016 Rules."
9. A perusal of the above decision would lead to the conclusion that
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 Rule 2(vi) of the
Baggage Rules, 2016. The relevant rule is extracted below for reference:
"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."
10. A perusal of the above Rules would show that the Customs Department
is required to make a distinction between 'jewellery' and 'personal jewellery'
while considering seizure of items for being in violation of the Baggage Rules,
2016.
11. In the present case, the invitation card of the marriage which the
Petitioner was intending to attend has also been placed on record. Thus, the
bringing of the jewellery is clearly bona fide.
12. Mr. Singla, ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that since the
Order-in-Original has been passed, the Petitioner may be permitted to avail of
the legal remedies.
13. The weight of the gold in this case is just 85 grams and they are personal
jewellery of the Petitioner. In view thereof, following the reasoning given in
W.P.(C) 2784/2025, Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union of India, the Order-
in-Original is set aside. The items shall be released to the Petitioner, subject
to payment of storage charges with the condition that the items shall be re-
exported.
14. The items shall be handed over either personally or through authorised
signatory after verifying credentials, within four weeks.
15. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of in above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
MARCH 27, 2025/MR/ik
