Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.40 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 79 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 77 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence vs Ms. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani on 18 August, 2017
14. The Supreme Court in Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (supra), has
considered whether jewellery being carried by a tourist as part of her baggage
would qualify as smuggling under the Act read with the Baggage Rules, 1998,
that was in force during the relevant period. The Supreme Court clearly holds
that it is not permissible to completely exclude jewellery from the ambit of
'personal effects'. Accordingly, the Court declared that the seized jewellery
items therein were the bona fide jewellery of the tourist for her personal use
and was intended to be taken out of India. The relevant extract from the
judgment of the Supreme Court is also set out below:-
Nathan Narayansamy vs Commissioner Of Customs on 15 September, 2023
Farida Classic Shoes Ltd. vs Cce on 22 February, 1999
22. The present case is fully covered by the decision in Nathan
Narayansamy (supra) and Farida Aliyeva (supra) as also Saba Simran
(supra) as relied upon by the Petitioner.
Saba Simran vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 October, 2023
22. The present case is fully covered by the decision in Nathan
Narayansamy (supra) and Farida Aliyeva (supra) as also Saba Simran
(supra) as relied upon by the Petitioner.
Smt. Kamar Jahan vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 22 October, 2019
28. Further, considering the large number of cases where the Customs
Department has seized or detained jewellery from tourists, either of Indian or
foreign origin, and the directions passed by this Court in Qamar Jahan
(supra) to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes (hereinafter "CBIC") to
reconsider the Baggage Rules, the Court deems fit to pass the following
directions for the interim period till the CBIC has reconsidered the Baggage
Rules:
1