Beware Gulf expats: You cannot carry more than 4gm of gold jewellery

[email protected] (Emirates247)
June 1, 2012

Dubai, June 1: Yes, as silly as that might sound, Indian Customs and baggage allowance regulations – outdated as they are – forbid passengers from carrying gold jewellery worth more than Rs10,000 (Dh655) if you're a male, and Rs20,000 (Dh1,310) if you're a woman.

At today's gold rates (Dh183 for 1gm of 24 carat gold), that translates into gold jewellery weighing a princely 3.57 grams for gentlemen and a rather lavish 7.15 grams for the ladies.

India's Central Board of Excise and Customs, which falls under its Ministry of Finance, stipulates that “An Indian passenger who has been residing abroad for over one year is allowed to bring jewellery, free of duty in his bona fide baggage up to an aggregate value of Rs10,000 (in the case of a male passenger) or Rs20,000 (in the case of a lady passenger).”

gold


Anything above that miserly limit is taxable under the Indian law, and if you're passing through the green channel with more than a few grams of gold on your person, well, the officer in-charge will be well within his rights to ask you to pay duty on the jewellery and/or face prosecution for trying to 'smuggle' gold and evade duty.

While Indian Customs are quick to update the exchange rates (last updated May 26, 2012) and now value the US dollar at Rs55.95 for imported goods and Rs55.15 for exported goods, the baggage rules were apparently last amended in 2006 – even though the limits set for gold and silver ornaments appear to have been set some time in last century, if not earlier.

And this amazing 'generosity' in India's baggage allowance is not limited to just jewellery. The Indian government does not allow even its own citizens to 'import' the Indian rupee, even if you are a non-resident Indian returning home for a vacation or visiting friends and family. The only exemption is for resident Indians, who may be returning home after a foreign visit. Even they can carry a maximum of Rs7,500 (Dh491).

However, the regulations do allow Indian expats returning home after a minimum of three months to carry household items (such as linen, utensils, tableware, kitchen appliances and an iron) up to an aggregate value of Rs12,000 (Dh787), and professional equipment up to a value of Rs20,000 (Dh1,311).

Those who've been out of India for at least six months get an additional quota of Rs20,000 for the professional equipment allowance.

But if you thought that professional equipment would include the likes of cameras and Dictaphones, well, you're wrong. “For the purposes of baggage rules, professional equipment means: Such portable equipment, instruments, apparatus and appliances as are ordinarily required in the profession in which the returning passenger was engaged. This expression includes items used by carpenters, plumbers, welders, masons and the like,” the regulations specify.

And as if to drive the message home, the rules add: “This concession is not available for items of common use such as cameras, cassette recorders, Dictaphones, typewriters, personal computers and similar items.”

Anyway, if you still want to 'import' gold weighing more than the allowance, here are the 'regulations' (source: Central Board of Excise and Customs website) that you are expected to adhere to:

IMPORT OF GOLD AS BAGGAGE

Who can import gold as baggage?

Any passenger of Indian Origin or a passenger holding a valid passport, issued under the Passport Act, 1967, who is coming to India after a period of not less than six months of stay abroad; and short visits, if any, made by the passenger during the aforesaid period of six months shall be ignored if the total duration of stay on such visits does not exceed thirty days.

Other Conditions

1. The duty shall be paid in convertible foreign currency.

2. The weight of gold (including ornaments) should not exceed 10kg per passenger.

Although the Customs website mentions 10kg allowance for dutiable gold import as baggage per passenger, according to latest reports, this limit has now been reduced to 1kg]

3. The passenger should not have brought gold or other ornaments during any of his visits (short visits) in the last six months i.e., he has not availed of the exemption under this scheme, at the time of short visits.

4. Ornaments studded with stones and pearls are not allowed to be imported.

5. The passenger can either bring the gold himself at the time of arrival or import the same within fifteen days of his arrival in India as unaccompanied baggage.

6. The passenger can also obtain the permitted quantity of gold from Customs bonded warehouse of State Bank of India and Metals and Minerals Trading Corporation subject to conditions (i) and (ii) above. He is required to file a declaration in the prescribed Form before the Customs Officer at the time of arrival in India stating his intention to obtain the gold from the Customs bonded warehouse and pay the duty before clearance.

RATE OF DUTY

- Gold bars, other than tola bars, bearing manufacturers or refiners engraved serial number and weight expressed in metric units and gold coins: Rs300 (Dh20) per 10gm + 3% education cess

- Gold in any form other than above, including tola bars and ornaments, but excluding ornaments studded with stones or pearls: Rs750 (Dh49) per 10gm + 3% education cess


Comments

Hildegard
 - 
Friday, 11 Mar 2016

Did you are aware that simply erasing or sanitizing your harddrive does not
guarantee that all of your private information is non-retrievable.
Maintenance can also be an important aspect of choosing a paper shredder.

You won't find a better source for paper shredders anywhere on the web.

my website ... NSA shredders: https://www.rebelmouse.com/glenngoldschmidt/paper-shredders-as-well-as-…

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
July 28,2020

Bengaluru, July 28: Former prime minister and JD(S) chief H D Deve Gowda today threatened to launch a state-wide agitation in against the amendments made to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

Gowda’s opposition to the new law comes even as Congress leader Siddaramaiah is also doggedly pursuing it.

Demanding that the state government immediately rollback the ordinance empowering these amendments, the octogenarian leader said he personally would take to streets if the government failed to budge.

The B S Yediyurappa government has liberalised the land reforms law by removing restrictions on non-agriculturists from purchasing and owning farm lands.

The government has also amended the APMC Act and has tweaked labour laws, which are all “against the interest of the state and must be rolled back,” Gowda said.

Speaking to reporters here, Gowda stated that he had already written thrice to Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa in this regard. "The ordinances have to be taken back. The amendments to Karnataka Land Reforms Act, by repealing sections 79-A, B and C, is an anti-farmer move. The APMC Act amendment, too, is against the interest of the state. The government has failed to speak about the impact of these amendments," said Gowda, who is now a Rajya Sabha member.

Elaborating on the amendment to the Land Reform Act, the JD(S) patriarch opined that by throwing open agricultural land ownership to anybody at all, the government was only helping real estate developers while pushing farmers into a “vulnerable” situation.

Amidst all this, there are now reports of funds misappropriation in Covid-19 relief measures and in procurement of medical equipment, he said, adding that it seemed like only the corrupt became stronger over time.

Further, Gowda lambasted both national parties for creating political unrest, referring to the ongoing political crisis in Rajasthan and the recent developments in Madhya Pradesh. However, he added that he would not wish to dwell on it much, while emphasising that his focus was primarily on strengthening his own party at this point in time.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 19,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.

Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.

“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.

In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.

‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’

Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.

“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.

In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.

“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.

The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 21,2020

Shivamogga, May 21: An FIR has been registered against Congress interim President Sonia Gandhi in Sagar taluk of Shivamogga district of Karnataka over tweets on May 11 by the party's official handle about PM-CARES fund.

The FIR, registered under Sections 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), identifies Gandhi as the handler of the social media account.

The complaint by advocate Praveen KV alleged that the Congress party, through the tweets, has made rumourous statements against the Government of India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi and was trying to provoke the people against the government.

According to the FIR, the Congress party had on May 11, 2020, made false and baseless allegations, claimed misappropriation of PM-CARES Fund and cast aspersions on the Government of India through the tweets.

"A Twitter account handled by All India Congress Committee headed by Sonia Gandhi had on May 11, 2020, published tweets terming PM CARES Fund as PM CARES Fraud. They had claimed that the PM CARES fund is not being used for the public," Praveen KV told ANI on Thursday.

He said that he has collected all the details related to the tweets and account from the handle and filed a complaint in the matter, following which a preliminary enquiry was conducted and an FIR was registered in the matter.

"They had also said that the Prime Minister was enjoying and going to foreign trips with this fund. This is clearly rumourous news against the Government of India in this COVID-19 pandemic situation. In this regard, I had filed a complaint. After a primary enquiry, the Sagar Police has filed an FIR against Sonia Gandhi, who heads the INC Twitter account," Praveen KV said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.