RAJENDRA BAJAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Perused petition.

(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.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Baggage Rules, 1994 are superseded by the Baggage Rules, 1998.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 That such directions could have been issued in the impugned order since the said Rules have already been superseded by subsequent Baggage Rules, 1998 w.e.f. 2nd January, 1998.