The Madras High Court has recently criticised a Seizing Officer attached to the office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs for seizing a gold “Mangalya Thali Kodi” (necklace) from a Srilankan citizen alleging that the same was against the Baggage Rules 2016.

The court observed that the quantity of jewellery worn by the petitioner was normal for a newly married person and that the officers, while conducting searches should respect the customs of every religion in the country. The court also noted that it was unfair on the part of the officer to remove the petitioner's thali and such act was intolerable.

As per our customs, normally people used to wear “thaalikodi” up to 16 soverign, in such case, it would be normal for any middle class family to wear “thaalikodi” weighing around 11 sovereigns...As per our customs, it is normal for a newly married person to wear the aforesaid quantity of gold. When the officers are conducting search, they have to respect the customs of every religion of this Country.

 

“Wearing “thaalikodi” is culture of this country and asking a passenger to remove it, or forcefully snatching it from them, would certainly amount to annihilate the culture and at any cost, such act cannot be tolerated. Therefore, such irresponsible and rude behaviour of the 2nd respondent is clearly unbecoming as an officer and the same requires appropriate enquiry and action.,” the court said.

The court also observed that Rule 3 Clause (b) of the Baggage Rules 2016, which used the words “carried on the person up to Rs. 50,000,” was contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act and was thus ultra vires. The court noted that this clause under the Baggage Rules was contrary to Section 79 of the Customs Act which had excluded the jewels worn by the person. Thus, the court noted that while bringing in the Rule, the Rule making body had made the Baggage Rules as if they had the inherent power to make their own rules beyond the scope of the Statute.

“In the present case, admittedly, the Rule-making Authorities made the Rules by traveling beyond the scope of the Act, which would amount to ultra vires. In such case, the Statute would prevails over the Rules. When such being the case, the Statute referred only with regard to the baggage and therefore, the Rule has to be confined and read only with regard to the baggage and not with regard to the articles “carried on the person,”