Case Details: Saba Simran Versus Union of India (2025) 27 Centax 34 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Yashwant Varma & Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.
- S/Shri Vishal Tiwari & Kumari Nidhi Tripathi, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Ms Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Shri Chandan Prajapati, Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a film actress, travelled from Bengaluru to Dubai for a film shoot. Upon her return to India, she opted for the green channel at the airport. However, after crossing the channel, a Customs Officer intercepted her and recovered three gold bangles and fifteen gold beads from her baggage. These items were detained via a Detention Receipt. Subsequently, an Order-in-Original was issued, denying the petitioner the benefit of ‘Free Allowance’ under the Baggage Rules, 2016. The order further directed absolute confiscation of the detained gold jewellery and imposed a penalty on the petitioner. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, arguing that her personal jewellery, being pre-owned and used, should not be classified as imported goods and subjected to the monetary restrictions of the Baggage Rules, 2016.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that personal jewellery already in possession of a passenger before travel does not constitute an “import.” The Court emphasized that the quantitative restrictions under Rules 3 and 4 of the 2016 Rules apply only to articles acquired abroad with the intent to import, not to personal effects carried for daily use. It clarified that “personal effects” include jewellery and ornaments if they were already owned by the passenger before travel. Aligning its interpretation with previous baggage regulations and CBEC Circular No. 72/98-Cus., which explicitly recognized personal jewellery as part of “personal effects,” the Court set aside the adjudication order and directed the authorities to reconsider the matter in light of these legal principles.
List of Cases Cited
- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani — 2017 (353) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 18]
- Pushpa Lakhumal Tulani v. Addl. Commissioner — 2008 (227) E.L.T. 368 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 17]
- Vigneswaran Sethuraman v. Union of India — 2014 (308) E.L.T. 394 (Ker.) — Relied on [Para 19]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 72/98-Cus., dated 24-9-1998 [Para 10]
