The Madras High Court has held that the jewellery worn in person will not come under the purview of Baggage Rules.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that 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 jewellery worn in person will not come under the purview of baggage.
The petitioner is a citizen of SriLanka and had come down to Chennai and She got married to one Jeyakanth, who is also a Srilankan citizen and their marriage was solemnized at the SRO, Madurandhagam, Chengalpet District on 15.07.2023.
The petitioner’s husband left for France, where he is living currently and the petitioner left for SriLanka with her parents to await her spouse sponsor visa. She got her visa in the month of November 2023. Thereafter, once again, she
travelled to India and landed at Chennai International Airport on 30.12.2023 at 03.30 pm along with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law with her children. As her husband had also come from France on 27.12.2023, to accompany her to France, they planned for pilgrimage too, to visit the various temples in Tamil Nadu, as it is our custom and tradition since she is newly married and yet to start her life in abroad during our visit in Tamil Nadu.
While passing the customs, the customs officer had checked their belongings and questioned about her gold bangles weighing about 45 grams and Thaalikodi weighing about 88 grams. When the enquiry was conducted, she replied that she had got married and going to France after their planned pilgrimage in Tamil Nadu and she has also shown the return ticket to France to the officials.
The customs officer did not accept her statements and started to treat the petitioner, her in-laws and the 3 children in an arrogant manner and ordered the petitioner to remove her Thaalikodi and hand over the same to the 2nd respondent.
However, she refused and begged the customs official not to remove her Thaali since it is a sentimental ornament being a symbol and token of marriage. In spite of her request, the respondent customs official, S.Mythili along with her subordinates had forced the petitioner and snatched her Mangalya Thalikodi from her neck. Seeing the formidable behavior of the customs official, her in-laws had also begged the officer not to do so. But they were man-handled and pushed on the floor. The 3 children started screaming and shivering with fear and at one point of time, her mother-in-law had fainted and fell down on the floor.
The department had referred to the provisions of the Baggage Rules, 2016.
The petitioner contended that by referring to Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 1962, he would submit that only if any personal jeweleries were kept in baggage, the Baggage Rule will apply. However, if it is carried on the person, i.e., if the jeweleries were worn by the passenger, in such case, the Baggage Rule is beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The department contended that it was examined by a Government-approved Approver and the jewellery being a non-bonafide baggage and the petitioner being a foreign national, was ineligible to bring gold jewellery into India either in her person or in her baggage, the same was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The court held that the provision “as carried on the person” of the Baggage Rules, 2016 is ultra vires, the detention of gold under the Baggage Rules, 2016, in the present case would not apply, unless and otherwise if it is secreted in person, for which, the proceedings shall be initiated under Section 101 of the Customs Act, 1962, however, that is not the present case, except to the extent of false charges framed by the respondent department against the petitioner.
To Read Another Angle of the judgement CLICK HERE
Case Details
Case Title: Thanushika Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)
Case No.: W.P.No.5005 of 2024
Date: 31.01.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: A.Simiyon Raja
Counsel For Respondent: M.Santhanaraman
Read More: Bombay High Court Quashes DGFT SCN Issued To Essar Shipping Citing Res Judicata
