Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 77 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence vs Ms. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani on 18 August, 2017
9. The Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa
Lekhumal Tolani, (2017) 16 SCC 93, has considered whether jewellery being
carried by a tourist as part of her baggage would qualify as smuggling under
the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Baggage Rules, 1998, that was in force
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NAMITA W.P.(C) 7230/2025 Page 3 of 10
DHYANI
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:33:09
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:-
Saba Simran vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 October, 2023
"13. When the 2016 Rules ultimately came to be
promulgated, Rule 2(vi) specifically introduced a
definition with respect to "personal effects". As
noticed in the preceding parts of this judgment, Rule
2(vi) while defining "personal effects" explicitly
excludes items of jewellery. The word 'jewellery' as
it now appears in that definition clause must
necessarily be read in conjunction with the previous
versions of the Baggage Rules which operated from
time to time as well as the clarificatory Circular
referred to above. However, both Rules 3(a) as well
as 4(b) employ the phrase "used personal effects"
1