:1: bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.390 OF 2010 Mr.Rajendra Bajaj ..Petitioner Vs. The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.K.K.Shroff i/b. Akshar Laws for petitioner. Mr.R.V.Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.B.Pardeshi for respondents. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & K.K.TATED,JJ. DATE : 13TH APRIL,2010 P.C. Perused petition. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. THE FACTS 2. This petition is directed against the order passed by respondent No.2- the appellate Tribunal to the extent it directs examination of compliance of Baggage Rules,1994 in general and explanation to Rule 11 thereof in particular reproduced in para 8 of the impugned order dated 9th October, 2009 passed by the Tribunal with further obligation cast on the part of the petitioner to show whether the jewelery brought to India was new or used, and whether it was personally and reasonably required by the tourist coming to India in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the visit of the petitioner. SUBMISSIONS 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Baggage Rules, :2: 1994 are superseded by the Baggage Rules,1998. He, thus, submits that the appellate Tribunal has committed serious error of law in directing the authority to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the Baggage Rules,1994 in general and explanation to Rule 11 thereof in particular. That such directions could have been issued in the impugned order since the said Rules have already been superseded by subsequent Baggage Rules,1998 w.e.f. 2nd January, 1998. 4. On being asked, Mr.R.V.Desai, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent could not challenge the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the Baggage Rules of 1994 have already been superseded by Baggage Rules,1998. He, thus, submits that the impugned order be modified substituting the Baggage Rules,1994 with that of Baggage Rules, 1998, wherever they are referred to in the impugned order. 5. In rejoinder, learned Counsel for the petitioner expressed his no- objection for adopting the mode submitted by Mr.Desai. CONSIDERATION: 6. Having heard rival Counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and suggestions given by Mr.Desai need acceptance. The Baggage Rules,1994 could not have been relied upon or pressed into service by the lower Appellate Authority. No directions to the Adjudicating Authority could have been given to decide the matter afresh on the basis of Baggage Rules,1994 which stood repealed. 7. Accepting the joint suggestion made by the parties to the petition, we hereby modify the impugned order and substitute the reference to the Baggage Rules,1994 (wherever such reference is appearing) with that of Baggage Rules,1998 and direct that the impugned order be read accordingly. Rest of the order shall remain as it is. :3: 8. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to decide the matter afresh taking note of the modification of the impugned order ordered herein. 9. In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)