9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 692 - AT - CustomsSmuggling - Gold Bars - Baggage Rules - personal effects - applicability of New Baggage Rules which came into existence post 2009-2014 vide N/N. 30/2016 Cus-NT dated 01.03.2016 - Jurisdiction under Section 129 (A) Customs Act, 1962 to decided an appeal - HELD THAT - New Baggage Rules have come into existence post 2009-2014 vide Notification No. 30/2016 Cus-NT dated 01.03.2016. As per Rule 2(vi) personal effects is defined to mean things required for satisfying daily necessities but does not include Jewellery. The gold recovered though was not precisely jewellery but was definitely not the thing required for satisfying daily necessities. The substantial use of this metal in making jewellery is also a fact which takes the metal out of the scope of definition of personal effects in Rule 2(iv) of New Baggage Rules. These observations are held sufficient to hold that the gold bars recovered from the bags of the appellants intercepted at the airport (within the Customs area) are the goods imported as Baggage. As per Section 129 (A) Customs Act, 1962, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of an order which relates to any goods exported or imported as Baggage. The appellants have brought the gold from outside India into their handbags without requisite declaration as required under section 78 of the Customs Act. Reliance placed in the case of SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA SHANTILAL VERSUS CC AHMEDABAD 2012 (9) TMI 824 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD where it was held that In this case, whatever is brought by a passenger from abroad is considered as baggage and the passenger is required to make a declaration under Section 77 and till the goods are declared and cleared from Customs area (airport) after declaration, the goods remain imported goods and the person remains the importer. Going by this analogy also, the goods in this case can be considered as imported goods only and as already mentioned earlier, Section 129A provides that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of any goods imported or exported as baggage. Accordingly, it is held that since appeal relates to Baggage, the same is not maintainable before the Tribunal - Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal regarding goods imported as baggage. 2. Definition of 'personal effects' under New Baggage Rules. 3. Requirement of declaration for goods imported as baggage. 4. Applicability of previous decisions and judgments on similar cases. Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal regarding goods imported as baggage The Tribunal considered the preliminary objection raised by the Departmental Representative challenging the maintainability of the appeal. The representative argued that as per Section 129(A) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide appeals related to goods imported or exported as baggage. The Tribunal referred to the New Baggage Rules, 2016, and held that the gold bars recovered from the appellants at the airport were goods imported as baggage. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions, including Final Order No. 41761/2018 of the Tribunal Chennai Bench, to support this conclusion. As the appeal related to baggage, the Tribunal deemed it not maintainable before them. Issue 2: Definition of 'personal effects' under New Baggage Rules The Tribunal analyzed the definition of 'personal effects' under the New Baggage Rules, which exclude jewelry and items not required for daily necessities. It was noted that the gold bars found in the appellants' handbags did not fall under the category of personal effects as they were not essential for daily use and were commonly used in making jewelry. This observation supported the conclusion that the recovered gold bars were goods imported as baggage. Issue 3: Requirement of declaration for goods imported as baggage The Tribunal emphasized the requirement for passengers to make a declaration of their baggage contents to the proper officer under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal cited the case of Shri Prakash Chandra Shantilal vs. CCE, Ahmadabad, to highlight the obligation of passengers to declare bona fide household articles as per the baggage rules. The failure of the appellants to declare the gold bars brought from outside India into their handbags was considered an act of 'Import as Baggage.' Issue 4: Applicability of previous decisions and judgments on similar cases The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Payangadi Moidu Mohammed Ali vs. Commissioner of Appeals, Chennai, to support the conclusion that appeals related to baggage are not maintainable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also cited the case of M. Ambalal & Co., where the Tribunal denied charging duty on goods considered as baggage due to lack of evidence of them being brought as baggage. These precedents reinforced the Tribunal's decision to dispose of the appeal concerning goods imported as baggage. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Department's objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, emphasizing the jurisdictional limitations of the Tribunal in cases involving goods imported as baggage. The appellants were directed to seek appropriate remedies before the competent authority for matters related to baggage, as the appeal was deemed not maintainable before the Tribunal.
|
