"Personal Jewellery" Of Person Coming To India Not Subjected To Customs Duty: Delhi High Court
Kapil Dhyani
4 Dec 2024 11:22 AM IST
The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to a woman whose over 200 gm gold jewellery was confiscated by the Customs on her return from Dubai. In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja held that “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...
The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to a woman whose over 200 gm gold jewellery was confiscated by the Customs on her return from Dubai.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja held that “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 duty under the Baggage Rules, 2016.
Rule 2(vi) of the 2016 Rules, while defining “personal effects”, explicitly exclude items of jewellery. Thus, the Customs claimed that all jewellery and ornaments, personal or otherwise, are subject to the restrictions contained in the 2016 Rules.
The Court however highlighted the distinction between “personal jewellery” and the word 'jewellery' per se.
“The expression 'jewellery' as it appears in Rule 2(vi) would 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,” it said.
The woman claimed that the jewelry would be covered under 'personal effects' and allowed duty free. Whereas the Customs Department claimed that it was an import, subject to duty.
At the outset, the High Court cited a Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, in relation to the erstwhile Baggage Rules, 1998, clarifying that the phrase “personal effects” would include “personal jewellery”.
This distinction was lost in the 2016 Rules. This however, the High Court said, “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.”
It cited 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”.
The bench also cited Vigneswaran Sethuraman vs. Union of India (2014) where the Kerala High Court dealt with the applicability of the Baggage Rules, 1998 and their impact on jewellery borne by a passenger on his person. It had ruled that it was not necessary for the petitioner to declare the gold chain worn by him.
Hence, the High Court concluded,
“If the expression “personal effects” were borne in consideration, it would include all items which are carried by an incoming passenger for satisfying daily necessities. That phrase could include jewellery and ornaments which are personal items. Since borne on the person or the baggage of that passenger, they would clearly not constitute import.”
Accordingly, it set aside the confiscation and penalty order and directed the Joint Commissioner to evaluate the petitioner's prayer for release of her jewellery.
Appearance: Advocates Vishal Tiwari and Kumari Nidhi Tripathi for Petitioner; CGSC Pratima N. Lakra with Advocate Chandan Prajapati for Respondents
Case title: Saba Simran vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P. (C) 3612/2024
