Baggage Rules Apply Only To Luggage Of International Travellers, Not To 'Reasonable Amount' Of Jewellery Worn In-Person: Madras HC

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the Rules cannot be extended to articles like jewellery, “carried on the person” of a traveller.

The bench observed, “The Customs Act, 1962, enables the Central Government to make Rules to the extent of the articles carried in the baggage of a passenger and not for the articles, which were carried on the person and hence, the inclusion of the word “carried on the person” is beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 79 of the Customs Act.”

The Court was referring to Rule 3 of Baggage Rules which prescribed that passengers arriving from abroad will not have to pay duty on dutiable goods like gold upto the value of ₹50 thousand, if carried on the person or in the accompanied Baggage.

It pointed out that Section 79 (of the parent Act) talks about “anything in the baggage” alone.

In this backdrop the Court observed that when the Parliament had consciously excluded the jewels worn by passengers from the purview of Section 79 Customs Act, the Rule making authority cannot include it under the Baggage Rules.

“...the (Customs) Act enables the Central Government to make the Rules only with regard to the baggage…When the provision of the Rule (insofar as it includes articles carried on person) is beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act, only the provision of the Act will prevail over the Rules. Thus, the word “carried on the person up to Rs.50,000/-” is clearly beyond the scope of the Act and it cannot be given any effect since it is contrary to the provisions of the Statute.”

In the same breath, the Court clarified that if anyone wears any unreasonable amount of gold or jewelry, they will be brought under search. Similarly, if the jewelry is 'secreted in person', then proceedings can be initiated under Section 101 of the Customs Act.

It illustrated, “In India, as per our customs, it is normal to wear 10 nos. of bangles for a marriage function. In such case, it is for the Officers to apply their mind while detaining the gold. If 10 nos. of chains were worn by a person, then it would be suspectable and if anything is hide, then the provisions of Section 101 and 102 of the Customs Act, 1962, would apply since it clearly amounts to secreting the gold in their body under the pretext of worn in the body. ”

The Court added that until the Parliament takes a decision and amend the provisions of the Customs Act, the Officers will have to apply their minds with regard to detaining the passenger and the gold worn by them as the same would not fall within the purview of the Baggage Rules, 2016.

Baggage Rules allow clearance of duty free articles in bonafide baggage of a traveller. It also sets a limit on the quantity of dutiable articles which can be carried duty free. It also exempts 'personal effects' of a traveller.

Currently, the Rules permit any jewellery of 20 grams with a value cap of Rs. 50,000/- in case of a man and 40 grams with a value cap of Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of a woman to be cleared free of duty.

In the case at hand, a Srilankan national had approached the Court seeking release of her gold ornaments.

The Court criticised the Seizing Officer for seizing her gold necklace, observing that the quantity of jewellery worn by the petitioner was normal for a newly married person and that the officers, while conducting searches should respect the customs of every religion in the country.

It cited State of Tamil Nadu and Another vs. P.Krishnamurthy and others (2006) where the Supreme Court had held that a Rule Making Authority has to make the Rules within the scope of the parent Act and no Rules shall exceed beyond the scope of the parent Act since it would amount to ultra vires.

“Thus, in the present case, the Baggage Rule, 2016 will apply only to the baggage and the Rule made to the extent that the article “carried on the person” will not include baggage, which was in excess of powers conferred by the Rule making Authority and would amount to ultra vires. Therefore, the jewelery worn in person will not come under the purview of baggage,” it held.

Also Read: "Personal Jewellery" Of Person Coming To India Not Subjected To Customs Duty: Delhi High Court

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A. Simiyon Raja

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. M. Santhanaraman, Senior Standing counsel

Case Title: Thanushika v The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 47

Case No: W.P.No.5005 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download the Judgment