Case Details: Union of India Versus Saba Simran (2025) 32 Centax 132 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
- S/Shri Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv., N. Venkatraman, A.S.G., Navanjay Mahapatra, Dhruv Sharma, Ms Anamika Agrawal, Advs. & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Vishal Tiwari, Smt. Sunita Singh, Ms Tripti Kashyap, Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Advs. & Abhigya Kushwah, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a passenger returning from Dubai, was subjected to a customs examination during which 3 gold bangles weighing 130 grams and 15 gold beads weighing 89 grams were recovered from a plastic box in their baggage. The authorities sought to apply the monetary limits prescribed under Rules 3 and 4 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, treating the items as jewellery subject to valuation thresholds. The petitioner contended that the items were personal jewellery and qualified as ‘personal effects’ under Rule 2(vi) of the Baggage Rules, 2016.
It was submitted that the term ‘jewellery’ must be interpreted in the context of earlier versions of the Baggage Rules and Circular No. 72/98-Cus., dated 24-09-1998, which clarified that the term should include articles newly acquired as opposed to used personal jewellery worn on the person or carried in baggage. Based on this interpretation, it was argued that personal jewellery, which was not acquired on the overseas trip and was used as personal effect, would not be subject to the monetary prescriptions under Rules 3 and 4. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court and accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The Court affirmed the High Court’s view that the term ‘jewellery’ in Rule 2(vi) of the Baggage Rules, 2016, must be read in conjunction with prior versions of the Rules and Circular No. 72/98-Cus., dated 24-09-1998, which distinguished between newly acquired jewellery and used personal effects. It was held that personal jewellery, which was not acquired during the overseas trip and constituted personal effect of the passenger, would not attract the monetary limits prescribed under Rules 3 and 4 of Baggage Rules, 2016.
List of Cases Cited
- Saba Simran v. Union of India — (2025) 27 Centax 34 (Del.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
