No Jurisdiction To Entertain Appeal Over Goods Imported Or Exported As Domestic Baggage Under Proviso To S.129A(1) Of Customs Act: CESTAT Chennai

The Chennai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently clarified that once the luggage/bag which accompanies an individual arriving from a domestic airport in India, during the aircrafts domestic run, is intercepted by the officers, there cannot be a presumption that it is covered under the Customs Act, 1962 and to which the Baggage Rules, 2016 can automatically apply. The CESTAT therefore held that, “'baggage' under the Baggage Rules 2016, includes jewellery worn or concealed on the person of an individual arriving in India from abroad, and hence this Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal pertaining to 'any goods imported or exported as baggage' as per the exclusions carved out by the proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962”. (Para 14) Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, allows any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs under section 130 to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, with certain exceptions, such as appeals related to goods imported or exported as baggage. The Division Bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that imported consumer goods are freely available within the country and cannot be presumed to be goods improperly imported or to be smuggled goods if found on the person or in the luggage of individuals arriving at domestic airports, while the flight is on a domestic run. Facts of the case: Air Intelligence Unit of Customs intercepted the appellant who arrived at Chennai Airport from Dubai and had opted for green channel at the exit of the arrival hall of the International Terminal of Chennai Anna International Airport. On examination of the baggage, it was not found to contain any incriminating goods or documents except her personal effects, but on search of the 'person', one chain, two anklets and two bangles were found concealed in her undergarments and the same were recovered. Suspecting the recovered yellow metals to be gold, gold appraiser was called and based on his examination, it was found that the yellow metals were 24 karat gold totally weighing 598 grams and valued at Rs.31,37,108/-. Challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 128A of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellant approached the Tribunal. This was however opposed by the Revenue, contending that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner (A) u/s 128A relating to any goods imported or exported as "Baggage". Observations of CESTAT: The Bench found that after the Customs Officers intercepted the appellant-passenger, they searched her baggage but no 'incriminating goods or documents' were found in it, but on search of her 'person', one chain, two anklets and two bangles all made of gold were allegedly found concealed in her undergarments and the same were recovered. The question, therefore arises whether the goods recovered from the person of a passenger are a part of her “baggage”, so that the appeal is excluded from the jurisdiction of CESTAT in terms of proviso (a) to Section 129A(1), of the Customs Act, 1962, added the Bench. The Bench referred to a decision of the High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs Ahmed Ghani Nachiar [2024 (15) Centax 177 (Mad.)], which related to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide any appeal in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 A of the Customs Act, 1962 relating to any goods imported or exported as “Baggage” and that “Baggage” under the 2016 Rules includes jewellery worn on the person. In case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Pushpa L. Tolani [2024 (390) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court held that the Assessee was not carrying any dutiable goods because the goods were her bona fide jewellery for her personal use and was intended to be taken out of India, and hence the issue was decided in terms of the Baggage Rules only. The Bench found there is by and large a convergence of views among the Constitutional Courts on the applicability of the Baggage Rules 2016 to gold jewellery found on an individual or carried in his/ her baggage while arriving in India from abroad. Thus, established procedures and practices that have been in place since the Finance Act of 1984 should not be changed suddenly or else it would cause immense difficulty to appellant,s especially in the case of passengers, added the Bench. Having noted the defect of jurisdiction, the CESTAT opined that the Defect Appeal must be returned to the appellant for being filed before the appropriate appellate forum. Counsel For Appellant/ Assessee: J. Sirajudeen Counsel For Respondent/ Revenue: Anandalakshmi Ganeshram Case Title: Noorul Ayin Versus Commissioner of Customs Case No: Defect Appeal No. 42151/2024 ...

No Jurisdiction To Entertain Appeal Over Goods Imported Or Exported As Domestic Baggage Under Proviso To S.129A(1) Of Customs Act: CESTAT Chennai

Pankaj Bajpai

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

No Jurisdiction To Entertain Appeal Over Goods Imported Or Exported As Domestic Baggage Under Proviso To S.129A(1) Of Customs Act: CESTAT Chennai

Pankaj Bajpai

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers