Foreign National Wearing Personal Jewellery To India Not Subject To Import Duty: Delhi High Court

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja thus declared as illegal the action of the Customs Department, confiscating a Thai national's gold chain and kara. It observed,

“In the present case also, petitioner is a foreign national, who brought a chain and a kara by wearing them on his body while arriving from Bangkok. The same was not brought in a concealed manner…We accordingly hold that the order of confiscation, customs duty and the penalty imposed is without any legal foundation.”

The High Court said that the present case stands squarely covered by the judgment of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and others vs. Pushpa Lekhumal Tulani (2017) where the Supreme Court held that the respondent was not carrying any dutiable goods because the goods were the “bona fide jewellery of the respondent for her personal use”.

It had observed, “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.”

The Customs claimed that since the petitioner did not provide any documents regarding the possession of the gold chain and kara, the same were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act on a reasonable belief that the same were imported to India illegally and were attempted to be cleared without payment of customs duty, in violation of Section 77.

Petitioner filed his response stating that the gold was purchased by his wife from Delhi itself and it was taken to Bangkok.

The Department then pointed that the Petitioner had not made any declaration of gold kara and chain in the Declaration Form. Moreover, Petitioner had not obtained export certificate in respect of the said gold while leaving India for Bangkok and there was nothing on record to suggest that the impugned gold was the same gold which was purchased from India.

In any case, it was argued that exemption from duty is confined to personal effects, exclusive of jewellery, whether it be personal or otherwise.

Disagreeing, the High Court cited Vigneswaran Sethuraman vs. Union of India (2014) where the Kerala High Court held that it was not necessary for the petitioner to declare the gold chain worn by him and the Customs Act, 1962 or the Baggage Rules, 1998 do not stipulate that a foreign tourist entering India cannot wear gold ornaments on his person.

Also significant to take note of the High Court's recent judgment In Saba Simran vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) which held that 'personal jewellery' cannot be subject to Custom duty.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed with direction to release/ return the gold to the Petitioner.

Appearance: Advocates DS Chadha and Riya Sharma for Petitioner; CGSC Anil Soni, SSC Harpreet Singh with Advocates Devrat Yadav, Suhani Mathur and Jatin Kumar Gaur for Respondents

Case title: Luvleen Maingi v. UoI

Case no.: W.P.(C) 11877/2018