Saba Simran Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court 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 the monetary prescriptions incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of the Baggage Rules, 2016.
Facts- The petitioner had travelled from Bengaluru to Dubai on 22 May 2023 for the shooting of her film. She returned on 25 May 2023 by an Indigo flight from Dubai at Delhi International Airport, Terminal-3 and opted for the green channel. She was intercepted by a Customs Officer after she had crossed the green channel. On her search, one plastic box containing 3 gold bangles, weighing 130 grams, 15 gold beads (parts of bracelets) weighing 89 grams were recovered. The recovered goods were detained vide Detention Receipt dated 25 May 2023.
According to the respondents, all jewellery and ornaments, personal or otherwise, is liable to be viewed as prohibited goods in addition to being subject to the restrictions contained in the 2016 Rules.
Conclusion- The expression ‘jewellery’ as it appears in Rule 2(vi) would thus 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. Thus, 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 the monetary prescriptions incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of the 2016 Rules.
