2010 (12) TMI 1335 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal to entertain appeals under section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 related to seized currency recovered from individuals attempting to illegally export it as baggage.

Jurisdictional Issue:
The appeal questioned whether the learned Tribunal had the authority to entertain appeals against the Commissioner of Customs under section 129A, considering the proviso that restricts appeals related to goods imported or exported as baggage. The appellant argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to this proviso, rendering its previous judgment null and void.

Factual Background:
Two passengers were intercepted at the airport for attempting to illegally export Indian currency in their baggage, leading to seizure and adjudication proceedings. The Joint Commissioner of Customs ordered the release of the seized currencies without imposing personal penalties. An appeal was filed under section 129D of the Customs Act, which was allowed, setting aside the adjudicating officer's order.

Contentions and Arguments:
The appellant contended that the seized currency should be considered as baggage, falling under the proviso to section 129A. However, the respondents argued that currency and baggage are distinct items as per legislative provisions and definitions. They emphasized that the case did not meet the criteria specified in the proviso.

Decision and Rationale:
The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that currency and baggage are separate items as defined in the Act. The definition of goods includes currency and negotiable instruments, while baggage is distinct. The Court concluded that the Tribunal correctly determined that the seized currency was not part of the baggage. Therefore, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the appeal under section 129A.

Conclusion:
The Court answered the questions regarding jurisdiction in favor of the Tribunal and directed the concerned department to implement the Tribunal's earlier order regarding the release of the seized currency after deducting fines and penalties. The appeal was disposed of with no costs awarded.