HomeIndirect TaxesMadras High Court Stays Order Declaring Baggage Rules Provision Invalid; Halts Action...

Madras High Court Stays Order Declaring Baggage Rules Provision Invalid; Halts Action Against Customs Officers in Gold Thaali Seizure Case

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Madras High Court has stayed a single judge’s order that declared a provision of the Baggage Rules ultra vires to the Customs Act regarding jewellery worn on the person. The single judge had also directed disciplinary action against Air Customs officers who seized gold ornaments, including the nuptial thread (thaali) of a Sri Lankan national, at Chennai Airport.

A division bench comprising Justice S S Sundar and Justice C Saravanan passed the interim stay while hearing appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, challenging the single judge’s order dated January 31, 2025. The bench directed the Customs department to return the seized jewellery after obtaining appropriate security, bond, or personal guarantee from the passengers concerned.

The single judge had earlier ruled the seizure unlawful and instructed the Union government’s Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to take action against the seizing officer for alleged excesses.

Read More: Customs Officer Forcefully Snatched Mangalsutra From Sri Lankan Citizen:  Madras High Court Directs Enquiry Against Customs Officers

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) A R L Sundaresan, along with senior standing counsel M Santhanaraman, argued that the single judge overlooked key legal aspects. They contended that under the Baggage Rules, 2016, used personal items do not include gold in any form.

“If this interpretation is accepted, unscrupulous passengers might exploit the law by wearing smuggled gold, thereby undermining efforts to regulate gold imports. Such a view would render the existing legal framework ineffective,” the ASG submitted.

The division bench’s interim order strikes a balance by ensuring the jewellery is returned while securing the government’s interest through necessary guarantees. The case has been adjourned for further hearing, with legal experts closely watching the outcome due to its potential implications for Customs enforcement across Indian airports.

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Sugar Export Ban Upheld: Bombay High Court Says Private Contracts and Advance Payments Can’t Override Govt. Policy

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the Centre’s decision...

DGFT Revises Import Policy for Clear Float Glass; Imports Below Rs. 34,000 Per MT CIF Value Restricted

The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry,...

Insurance Coverage Can’t Be Retrospectively Enlarged Without Advance Premium: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an insurer cannot assume or retrospectively extend an...

Income Tax Dept. Launches Nationwide Verification of Suspicious Foreign Remittances

The Income Tax Department has launched a nationwide verification exercise into suspicious foreign remittances...

More like this

Sugar Export Ban Upheld: Bombay High Court Says Private Contracts and Advance Payments Can’t Override Govt. Policy

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the Centre’s decision...

DGFT Revises Import Policy for Clear Float Glass; Imports Below Rs. 34,000 Per MT CIF Value Restricted

The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry,...

Insurance Coverage Can’t Be Retrospectively Enlarged Without Advance Premium: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an insurer cannot assume or retrospectively extend an...