Case Title: Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram and others v. Principal Commissioner and others
The Madras HC observed that gold/silver ornaments that are worn in person and exceed Rs. 50,000 in value have to be declared before the Customs Authority.
The Court also opined that the law was unambiguous in this regard. Though exemptions were provided under the Baggage Rules, 2016 it was limited to the extent permitted under the Rules. The court also opined that the import of jewellery worth more than Rs. 50,000 could not be considered as bonafide baggage and could not be exempted from paying customs duty.
The facts in brief are that the petitioners are members of the same family and are Sri Lankan nationals based in Colombo. They arrived at the Chennai Airport on 06.05.2017 along with two minor children and were wearing 1594 gms of gold jewellery valued at Rs.43,95,854/-. They attempted to walk through the green channel with 1594 gms of gold jewellery without making a declaration before the Customs Officers. Apart from the jewellery, the first petitioner had also purchased about 112 bottles of liquor valued at Rs.1,50,000/-
The Court, therefore, observed that “Jewelry items are not articles of personal effect. Therefore, the petitioners being tourists within the meaning of Rule 2(1)(v) of the Rules were governed by Sub Clause (b) of Rule 3 of Baggage Rules, 2016. The said Rule read with Annexure I makes it clear that gold or silver ornaments up to a value of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) worn in person or carried on the person are only freely importable.”
It furher observed that the Import of gold or silver ornaments exceeding Rs.50,000/- cannot be considered as part of the bonafide baggage of tourists travelling to India. The court also raised suspicion about the conduct of the petitioners. It was beyond court’s understanding why would the petitioners who claim to be pilgrims visiting an alien country would wear costly jewellery even if it is their custom. The fact that the petitioners also purchased 112 bottles of liquor beyond the permissible limits and attempted to walk through the green channel without making a declaration also shows that the visit to India by the petitioners was not purely as pilgrimage alone."