Qamar Jahan Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court has expressed some concerns in respect of the definition of the ‘jewellery’ in proposed Rule 2(viii) of the Baggage Rules as also the monetary cap being retained, albeit with modification, under proposed Rule 5 of the said Rules.
Facts- This is an application seeking clarification of order dated 19th May, 2025 and release of two gold kadas and one gold of the Petitioner which were seized by the Customs Authority. The present petition had been filed challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 6th February, 2024 and the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 23rd September, 2024. Vide impugned Order-in-Original the adjudicating authority, inter alia, ordered confiscation of the detained jewellery. Further, the Petitioner was also directed to pay the redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- and personal penalty of Rs. 1,10,000/- in terms of the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioner appealed the said Order-in-Original, however, the same came to be dismissed vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal.
Conclusion- Held that the Court after considering the said material has expressed some concerns in respect of the definition of the ‘jewellery’ in proposed Rule 2(viii) of the Baggage Rules as also the monetary cap being retained, albeit with modification, under proposed Rule 5 of the said Rules. These two aspects may be reconsidered by the CBIC. Insofar as the definition of ‘personal effect’ under proposed Rule 2 (vii) is concerned, the same has now been expanded and appears to be in-line with the decisions which have been passed by the Supreme Court and this Court. Let all the proposed changes be considered and the amended Rules, Regulations and Circulars as also the Guidelines/ Practice Directions to be issued be placed before the Court in final draft form on the next date of hearing.
