DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE AND OTHERS versus PUSHPA LEKHUMAL TOLANI
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 711, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 711 
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
PUSHPA LEKHUMAL TOLANI 
(Civil Appeal No. 4403 of 2010) 
AUGUST 18, 20 l 7 
[R.K. AGRAWAL AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.[ 
B 
Customs Act, 1962 -
ss. 77, 78 - Smuggling - Gold and 
diamond jewellery - Items claimed to be personal effects - Bringing C 
jewellery into India for taking it out with the passenger is permissible 
and is not liable to any import duty ~ Even as per EXIM Code 
Numbers 7113 19 20 and 7113 19 30 of ITC (HS) Classification of 
Export and Import items as on 01.04.2002, the import of gold 
jewellery studded with diamonds or with other precious stones, is 
freely allowed - Jn the instant case, in the absence of any facts on 
D 
record about the nature and mode of concealment and also any 
finding of the lower authority that jewellery brought by respondent 
was kept in a way to evade detection on examination of the baggage, 
it has to be held that there was no concealment as such - Respondent 
. chose the Green Channel for clearance of her baggage - She 
E 
committed no violation of law or infraction of any instruction for 
clearance of the baggage through the green channel as she being 
a tourist had no dutiable goods to declare under the Baggage Rules 
- Similarly, the invocation of s. 78 of the Act is of no use as this 
Section applied only to dutiable and prohibited goods -
The 
accusation of not declaring the goods to the customs authority and F 
evading duty alleged to be due
thereupon has no legal basis - Also, 
with regard to the proximity of purchase of jewellery, all the jewellery 
was not purchased a few days before the departure of the respondent 
from UK, a large number of items had been in use for a long period 
- The presumption that the jewellery found in her baggage cannot 
G 
be considered as personal effects owning to its high monetary value 
is rebutted - Respondent was entitled to import personal jewellery 
duty free - Jn the facts and circumstances of this case, the .remarks 
against the appellant from the judgment passed by the High Court 
are expunged - Baggage Rules, 1998 - r. 7. 
711 
H
.... 
712 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal the Court 
B 
c 
HELD: 1. Insofar as the question of violation of the 
provisions of the Act is concerned, the respondent did not violate 
the provisions of Section 77 of the Act since the necessary 
declaration was made by the respondent while passing through 
the Green Channel. Such declarations are deemed to be implicit 
and devised with a view to facilitate expeditious and smooth 
clearance of the passenger. Further, as per the International 
Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs 
Procedures, (Kyoto 18.05.1973), a passenger going through the 
green channel is itself a declaration that he has no dutiable or 
prohibited articles. Further, a harmonious reading of Rule 7 of 
the Baggage Rules, 1998 read with Appendix E (2), the respondent 
was not carrying any dutiable goods because the goods were the 
bona fide jewellery of the respondent for her personal use and 
was intended to be taken out of India. Also, with regard to the 
D proximity of purchase of jewellery, all the jewellery was not 
purchased a few days before the departure of the respondent 
from UK, a large number of items had been in use for a long 
period. It did not make any difference whether the jewellery is 
new or used. There is also no relevance of the argument that 
E 
F 
since all the jewellery is to be taken out of India, it was, therefore, 
deliberately brought to India for taking it to Singapore.
Foreign 
tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial 
value provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them and 
it is a pre-requisite at the time of making endorsements on the 
passport. Therefore, bringing jewellery into India for taking it 
out with the passenger is permissible and is not liable to any 
import duty. Even as per EXIM Code Numbers 7113 19 20 and 
7113 19 30 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import items 
as on 01.04.2002, the import of gold jewellery studded with 
diamonds or with other precious stones, is freely· allowed. 
G Similarly,the invocation of section 78 of the Act is of no use as 
this Section applied only to dutiable and prohibited goods. The 
accusation of not declaring the goods to the customs authority 
and evading d·uty alleged to be due thereupon has .no legal basis. 
[Para 9) [721:~-H; 722-A-F) 
H
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE v. PUSHPA 
713 
LEKHUMAL TOLAN! 
2. With regard to t_he intention of the respondent to take A 
back the jewellery to England is concerned, the air ticket sought 
to be relied upon by the DRI is not of much <:onsequence. In the 
reply affidavit filed before this Court by the respondent, it has 
been submitted that the so called. enquiry conducted by the 
appellant-D~ subsequent to the passing of the Judgment by the 
B 
High, ~ou~t was adJ!littedly done aft.er the, expiry of more than 
1,185 days. The respondent left for London on 01.03.2007 and 
return~d to Delhi on 06.03'.2001. It was further me~tioned.in the 
reply affidavit "that the (act of return of the respondent to india 
· was been' delibe~ately concealed by the appellant-DR!. In fact, 
the respondent had travelled to London to attend a doctor's C 
~ppoin~ipe~t ~~th ~er ~~~ghter who. ~as. upwell at the relevant 
time. Further, there i_s no restri<:!!on in UK h•w which prohibits a 
person claim.ing VAT in London from re.importing the items on 
which VAT has been claim~·d at~ later ~~te., Als~ from the instant 
facts and circumstances of the· case, it cannot be inferred that the 
jewellery ~:is mea~t for impo.rt into I~dia on the basis of return D 
ticket which was found to be hi the possession of the respondent. 
Moreover, her parents at the relevant time were in Indonesia 
and she had plans of proceeding to Indonesia. Some of the 
jewellery items purchased by the respondent were for
her 
personal use and some were intended to be left with her parents. E 
in Indonesia. The High Court rightly held that when she brought 
jewellery of a huge amount into the country, the respondent did 
not seem to have the intention to smuggle the jewellery into India 
· and to sell it off. Even on the examination of the jewellery for 
costing purposes, it came out to Rs. 25 lakhs and not Rs. 1.27 
crores as per the DRI. The High Court was right in holding that 
it is not the intention of the Board to verify the newness of every 
product which a traveller brings with him as his personal effect. 
It is quite reasonable that a traveler may make purchases of his 
personal effect_s before embarking on a tour to India. It could be 
F 
of any personal effect including jewellery. Therefore, its newness 
G 
is of no consequence. The expression "new goods" in their 
original packing has .to be understood in a pragmatic way. [Para 
10) (722-F-H; 723-A-E] 
H
714 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
3. In the absence of any facts on record about the nature 
and mode of concealment and also any finding of the lower 
authority that jewellery was kept in a way to evade detection on 
examination of the baggage, it has to be held that there was not 
concealment as such. It is seen that the respondent chose the 
Green Channel for clearance of her baggage. She committed no 
violation of law or infraction of any instruction for clearance of 
the baggage through the green channel as she being a tourist 
had no dutiable goods to declare under the Baggage Rules. The 
presumption that the jewellery found in her baggage cannot be 
considered as personal effects owning to its high monetary value 
is rebutted herewith and that the respondent was entitled to 
import personal jewellery duty free. 
In the facts and 
circumstances of this case, it will be just and proper to expunge 
the remarks against the appellant from the judgment passed by 
the High Court. Therefore, the strictures passed against the 
D 
appellant are expunged. (Paras 11, 121 (723-F-H; 724-A-B( 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4403 
of 2010. 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 04.09.2009 and 
13.09.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Review Petition 
E 
No. 335/2009 and W.P. (C) No. 6633/2003 respectively. 
Ranjit Kumar, SG, Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Ms. Binu Tamta, 
Abhinav Mukherji, B. Krishna Prasad,Advs. for the Appellant.
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. T. V. Ratnam, Ms.Anisha Banerjee, 
F 
M. Swori Dev, Senkara Kaushik, Gautam Khanchi, Ms.Tara Narula, 
Madhav Khurana, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.K. AGRA WAL, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against 
G 
the final judgments and orders dated 13. 09 .2006 and 04. 09 .2009 passed 
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 6633 
of2003 and Review Petition No. 335 of2009 respectively whereby the 
High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein while 
dismissing the review petition. 
H
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE v, PUSHPA 
715 
LEKHUMAL TOLAN! [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
2. Brief facts: 
A 
(a) On 19.11.2002, on the basis of specific intelligence tip off to 
the effect that one lady named Ms. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani-the 
respondent herein, who was scheduled to arrive at !GI Airport from 
London, would be carrying gold and diamond jewellery and other valuable 
goods concealed in her bags and would pass through the Green Channel 
B 
without the payment of the customs duty, the officers of the Directorate 
of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Hqrs. Office, New Delhi, kept a watch 
on her and as soon as she was about to cross the exit gate after passing 
through the Green Channel, she was intercepted and was asked whether 
she has any dutiable item to declare to which she replied in negative. A 
C 
search was conducted under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and 28 packages containing 44 
items of jewellery worth Rs. 1.27 crores were recovered from two hand 
bags. On the very same day, the respondent was produced before the 
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody 
and she remained there till 26.11.2002. 
D 
(b) On 12.12.2002, a show-cause notice was issued to the 
respondent by the then Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue 
Intelligence, asking her to show-cause as to why the seized goods should 
not be confiscated under the Act. On 14.08.2003, the competent authority, 
passed a
detailed order confiscating absolutely the new articles valued 
E 
at Rs. 86,52,765/-, confiscationofseizedjewelleryworthRs. 40,47,235/ 
-with redemption clause on payment of fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-and penalty 
to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Vide order dated 27 .09 .2004, Additional 
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, found the respondent guilty 
under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Act and sentenced to Ul)dergo 
F 
imprisonment for the period already undergone and imposed a fine of 
Rs. 6 lakhs. 
( c) Being aggrieved by the show-cause notice dated 12.12.2002 
and order dated 14.08.2003, the respondent herein filed Writ Petition 
(C) No. 6633 of 2003 before the High Court of Delhi. The Division 
G 
Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 13.09.2006 allowed the writ 
petition and quashed the show-cause notice and order dated 14.08.2003 
. and directed for release of the goods. In view of the aforesaid judgment, 
H
716 
SUPREME COUR:r REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A the appeal filed by the respondent herein against the conviction passed 
by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was allowed by the 
Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.04.2007. 
( d) Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant 
filed a review petition being No. 335 of2009. The Division Bench of the 
B 
High Court, vide order dated 04.09.2009, dismissed the said review 
petition. 
•J 
(e) Aggrieved by the orders dated 13.09.2006 and 04.09.2009, 
the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave. 
C 
3. Heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned 
Solicitor General for the appellant and Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior 
· counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 
Point(s) for consideration: 
D 
4. The only point for consideration before this Court is whether in 
E 
F 
the present facts and circumstances of the case, the show-cause notice 
dated 12.12.2002 and order dated 14.08.2003 are liable to be quashed or · 
not? 
Rival contentions: 
5. Learned Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the appellant-
DRI, contended that many of the items seized like gold and diamond 
studded tie pins, tie clips, metal collar etc., which cannot be used by a 
lady, cannot be termed as personal effects under the Baggage Rules, 
1998. Similarly, the articles which are newly purchased as evidenced by 
the invoices and are of extremely high value as well as the articles
belonging to other persons besides the passenger cannot be termed as 
personal effects. Learned Solicitor General further contended that the 
High Court failed to appreciate that in the scheme of law, there is 
exemption from duty on goods upto a specified value in the case of 
G 
passenger baggage but there is no exemption from making a true and 
correct declaration by a passenger. Fucyher, the respondent had filed a 
form before she left Eqgland wherein she claimed refund of VAT which 
clearly indicates that she had the intention of not taking the goods back 
H
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE v. PUSHPA 
717 
LEKHUMAL TOLAN! [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
to England from where she had purchased them. Learned Solicitor A 
General further contended that the jewellery was brought to India ang 
attempted to be passed through the Green Channel and the respondent 
was responsible for smuggling the same. In fact, on return of the seized 
jewellery, the respondent herein directly went back to London instead of 
Indonesia, contrary to the assertion made before the High Court in the 
B 
Writ Petition, which was held to be a ground in her favour for ascertaining 
her 'intention' before the High Court. Learned Solicitor General finally 
contended that the conduct of the respondent after release of the goods 
· had misled the court and the judgment of the High Court on the pretext 
of personal effects is liable to be set aside. 
6. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted 
that as per Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules 1998, a tourist arriving in India 
shall be allowed clearance free of duty, articles in his bona fide baggage 
c 
to the extent mentioned in Column (2)Appendix-E which indicates "used 
personal effects" for personal use of the tourist in India which, if not 
consumed, could be re-exported when the tourist leaves India for a foreign 
D 
destination. Hence, the charge that the respondent did not make any 
declaration under Section 77 of the Act is not correct as the respondent 
was not carrying any dutiable/prohibited items
and the jewellery she 
was carrying was bona fide jewellery. Further, with regard to the 
contention of VAT refund, learned senior counsel submitted that the same 
E 
has been refuted by the customs authorities in the United Kingdom stating 
that claimant of VAT is neither prohibited nor debarred from taking the 
. jewellery, on which VAT has been reclaimed, back to United Kingdom, 
if she so chooses and in view of the same her return to London cannot 
be doubted. Learned senior counsel finally contended that the High 
Court was right in arriving at the conclusion that the goods were personal 
effects and for the personal use of the respondent and no interference is 
sought for by this Court. 
Discussion:- ' 
F 
7. On 19 .11.2002, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue 
G 
Intelligence intercepted the respondent herein, who was passing through 
the Green Channel, on a tip off that the respondent herein is scheduled 
to arrive at IGI Airport from London and carrying gold and diamond 
H
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A jewellery along with other valuable items and she would not declare the 
same to Customs and pass through Green Channel without payment of 
customs duty. On being asked, the lady replied that she had nothing ta 
declare. On examination of the handbags being carried by the respondent 
herein several gold and diamond jewellery items were found worth 
B 
Rs. 1.27 crores. On being asked by the DR! officials, it was informed 
that the items are personal effects and no duty is leviable on the same. 
However, the DR! officials seized the items under the provisions of the 
Act with reasonable belief that the said items were smuggled into India 
in contravention of provisions of the Act and hence are liable to be 
confiscated. After following the due procedure, a show-cause notice 
C 
dated 12.12.2002 was issued to the respondent herein. The respondent 
herein filed her reply to the show-cause notice denying each and every 
allegation leveled against her. On 14.08.2003, an order was passed by 
the Additional Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi 
directing confiscation of the jewellery on certain terms and conditions 
D 
contained in the order. The respondent herein preferred a writ petition 
being No. 6633 of 2003 challenging the show-cause notice dated 
12.12.2002 and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 
14.08.2003 before the High Court. The Division Bench·of the High 
Court, vide order dated 13.09.2006 allowed the
writ petition and vide 
order dated 04 .09 .2009 dismissed the review petition filed by the appellant 
E 
against the order dated 13.09.2006. 
F 
G 
H 
8. ln the above backdrop, it is relevant to quote certain provisions 
of the Baggage Rules, 1998 as well as the Circulars dated 24.09.1998 
and 18.02.2000 issued by the Ministry of Finance which are as under:-
Definitions.-
"2. (iii) "tourist" means a person not normally resident in India, 
who enters India for a stay of not more than six months in the 
course of any twelve months period for legitimate non-immigrant 
purposes, such as touring, recreation, sports, health, family reasons, 
·study, religious pilgrimage or business; 
7. Tourists.-A tourist arriving in India shall be allowed clearance 
free of duty articles in his bona fide baggage to the extent mentioned 
in column (2) of Appendix E.
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE v. PUSHPA 
LEKHUMAL TOLAN! [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.) 
Appendix E 
1 
2 
Articles allowed free of duty 
a 
xxxx 
xxxxx 
b 
Tourists of foreign 
I 
.Used personal 
origin other than 
effects and travel 
those of Nepalese 
souvenirs, if -
origin coming from 
Nepal 
or 
of 
Bhutanese origin 
commg 
from 
Bhutan 
or 
Pakistan 
iginal 
commg 
from 
Pakistan 
a 
These goods, are 
for personal use 
of the tourist and-
b 
These goods, other 
than those consumed 
during the stay in 
India, are re-exported 
when the tourist 
leaves India for a 
foreign destination. 
ii 
Articles upto a value 
of Rs.8,000/- for 
making gifts 
c 
xxxx 
I 
xxxxx 
d 
xx xx 
I 
I 
xxxxx 
719 
A-
B 
c 
c D 
E 
F 
G 
H
720 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
1.xxxxx 
2.xxxxx 
Circular No. 72/98-Customs 
Dated 24/09/1998 
F.No. 520/136/92-CUS-Vl 
Government of India 
Ministry of Finance 
Department of Revenue, New Delhi 
3. The Baggage Rules, 1998 issued vide Notn. No. 30/98-Cus(NT) 
dated 2/6/98 has provided for import of duty free goods by tourists in 
C 
Regulation 7 as contained in Appendix E of the said rules. There is no 
definition for personal effects in the present Baggage Rules. However, 
for the sake of uniformity it is considered necessary to reiterate that the 
personal effects would include the following goods:-
D 
(i) Personal jewellery 
(ii) One camera with filmrolls not exceeding twenty 
(iii) One video camera/camcorder with accessories and with video 
cassettes not exceeding twelve 
(iv) One pair of binoculars 
E 
(v) One portable colour television (not exceeding 15 ems in size) 
(vi) One music system including compact disc player 
F 
G 
H 
(vii) One portable typewriter 
(viii) One permabulator 
(ix) One tent and other camping equipment 
(x) One computer (laptop/note book) 
(xi) One electronic diary 
(xii) One portable wireless receiving set (transistor radio) 
(xiii) Professional equipments, instruments and Apparatus of 
appliances including professional audio/video equipments. 
(xiv) Sports equipments such as one fishing outfit, one sporting 
fire arm with fifty cartridges, one non-powdered bicycles,
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE v. PUSHPA 
721 
LEKHUMAL TOLAN! [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
one canoe or ranges less than 51 metres long, one pair of skids, two 
A 
tennis rackets, one golf set (14 pcs. With a dozen of gold balls.) 
(xv) One cell phone · 
4. It may kindly be noted that while Notn. No. 45/92 defined 
personal effects as articles both new or used and Rule 11 of Baggage 
Rules 1994 allowed personal effects of tourists for duty free import, the 
B 
Baggage Rules 1998 allows only used personal effects of the tourists. It 
is not the intention of the Board to verify the newness of every product 
which a traveler brings so long as it is not prima facie new goods in their 
original packagings which can be disposed of off hand. 
(emphasis supplied by us) 
c 
Sd/-
(Vijay Kumar) 
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India 
F.No. 495/29/99-Cus-Vl 
Government of India 
Ministry of Finance 
Department of Revenue, New Delhi 
Central Board of Excise & Customs 
New Delhi, the 18'h Feb, 2000 
Subject: Baggagt<Rules-Tourist baggage-no endorsement of imports 
of personal effects on tourists' passports 
1. xxxxx 
2.xxxxx 
3. It may kindly be ensured that all genuine tourists are allowed to 
bring in their personal effects without endorsement on the passports and 
without payment of duty, subject to the terms and conditions prescribed 
· in the Baggage rules, 1998." 
(emphasis supplied by us) 
9. Insofar as the question of violation of the provisions of the Act 
is concerned, we are of
the opinion that the respondent herein did not 
violate the provisions of Section 77 of the Act since the necessary 
declaration was made by the respondent while passing through the Green 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
722 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Channel. Such declarations are deemed to be implicit and devised with 
a view to facilitate expeditious and smooth clearance of the passenger. 
Further, as per the International Convention on the Simplification and 
Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Kyoto 18.05.1973), a passenger 
going through the green channel is itself a declaration that he has no 
B 
c 
dutiable or prohibited articles. Further, a harmonious reading of Rule 7 
of the Baggage Rules, 1998 read with Appendix E (2) (quoted above), 
the respondent was not carrying any dutiable goods because the goods 
were the bona fide jewellery of the respondent for her personal use and 
was intended to be taken out oflndia. Also, with regard to the proximity 
of purchase of jewellery, all the jewellery was not purchased a few days 
before the departure of the respondent from UK, a large number of 
items had been in use for a long period. It did not make any difference 
whether the jewellery is new or used. There is also no relevance of the 
argument that since all the jewellery is to be taken out of India, it was, 
therefore, deliberately brought to India for taking it to Singapore. Foreign 
D 
tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value 
provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them and it is a 
pre-requisite at the time of making endorsements on the passport. 
Therefore, bringing jewellery into India for taking it out with the
passenger 
is permissible and is not liable to any import duty. Learned senior counsel 
E 
F 
brought to our notice that even as per EXIM Code Numbers 7113 19 20 
and 7113 19 30 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import items 
as on 01.04.2002, the impo1t of gold jewellery studded with diamonds or 
with other precious stones, is freely allowed. Similarly, learned senior 
counsel rightly submitted that the invocation of Section 80 of the Act is 
of no use as this Section applies only to dutiable and prohibited goods. 
The accusation of not declaring the goods to the customs authority and 
evading duty alleged to be due thereupon has no legal basis. 
I 0. With regard to the intention of the respondent to take back the 
jewellery to England is concerned, we do not think that the air ticket 
sought to be relied upon by the DRI is of much consequence. In the 
reply affidavit dated 20.10.2014 filed before this Court by the respondent 
G 
herein, it has been submitted that the so called enquiry conducted by the 
appellant-DR! subsequent to the passing of the judgment by the High 
Court was admittedly done after the expiry of more than I, I 85 days. 
The respondent herein left for London on 01.03.2007 on Jet Airways 
flight No. 9W-0122 and returned to Delhi on 06.03.2007 on Jet Airways 
H
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE v. PUSHPA 
723 
LEKHUMAL TOLAN! [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
flight No. 9W-0121. It has been further mentioned in the reply affidavit 
that the fact of return of the re.spondent herein to India has been 
deliberately concealed by the appellant-ORI. In fact, the respondent 
had travelled to London to attend a doctor's appointment with her daughter 
who was unwell at the relevant time. Further, there is no restriction in 
UK law which prohibits a person claiming VAT in London from 
re-importing the items on which VAT has been claimed at a later date. 
Also, from the present facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be 
inferred that the jewellery was meant for import into India on the basis 
. of return ticket which was found to be in the possession of the respondent. 
A 
B 
Moreover, we cannot ignore the contention of the respondent that her 
parents at the relevant time were in Indonesia and she had plans of C 
proceeding to Indonesia. Some of the jewellery items purchased by the 
respondent were for her personal use and some were intended to be left 
with her parents in Indonesia. The High Court has rightly held that 
when she brought jewellery of a huge amount into the country, the 
respondent did not seem to have the intention to smuggle the jewellery 
into India and to sell it off. Even on the examination of the jewellery for 
D 
costing purposes, it has come out to be of Rs. 25 lakhs and not Rs. 1.27 
crores as per the DRI. The High Court
was right in holding that it is not 
the intention of the Board to verify the newness of every product which 
a traveler brings with him as his personal effect. It is quite reasonable 
that a traveler may make purchases of his personal effects before 
embarking on a tour to India. It could be of any personal effect including 
jewellery. Therefore, its newness is of no consequence. The expression 
. "new goods" in their original packing has to be understood in a pragmatic 
way. 
E 
Conclusion:-
F 
11. We are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any 
facts on record about the nature and mode of concealment and also any 
finding cifthe lower authority that jewellery was kept in a way to evade 
detection on examination of the baggage, it has to be held that there was 
no concealment as such. It is seen that the respondent chose the Green 
G 
Channel for clearance of her baggage. She committed no violation of 
law or infraction of any instrnction for clearance of the baggage through 
the green channel as she being a tourist had no dutiable goods to declare 
under the Baggage Rules. The presumption that the jewellery found in 
her baggage cannot be considered as personal effects owing to its high 
H
724 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
monetary value is rebutted herewith and we hold that the respondent 
was entitled to import personal jewellery duty free. 
12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it will be just and 
proper to expunge the remarks against the appellant from the judgment 
passed by the High Court. ·Therefore, the strictures passed against the 
B 
appellant are expunged. 
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered 
opinion that the High Court was right in setting aside the show-cause 
notice dated 12.12.2002 and order dated 14.08.2003 passed by the 
competent authority. There is no scope to interfere in the orders passed 
c by the Division Bench of the High Court. There is no merit in this appeal 
and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. However, 
it is made clear that the present conclusion is confined only to the disposal 
of this appeal. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal dismissed.