2022 (1) TMI 521 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - yellow material found in the baggage - applicability of proviso contained to Section 129 A (1) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - The proviso clearly stipulates that no appeal shall lie to the appellate tribunal and the appellate tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of an order referred to in Clause (b) of Section 129 A (1) if such order relates to goods imported or exported as baggage. In fact, a perusal of the Section 129DD indicates that a revision may lie before the Central Government. As the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide the appeal, it stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act to decide appeals related to goods imported or exported as baggage.

In this case, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which upheld the decision of the Additional Commissioner of Customs regarding the appellant's baggage search where yellow material was found. The Department's Authorized Representative raised a preliminary objection, contending that the appeal was not maintainable before the Tribunal due to the proviso in Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal acknowledged the proviso, which states that no appeal shall lie before the Tribunal in cases related to goods imported or exported as baggage, and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide such appeals. The Tribunal highlighted that Section 129DD provides for revision before the Central Government in such cases. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing its lack of jurisdiction to decide on matters concerning goods imported or exported as baggage.

This judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the proviso in Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, which restricts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide appeals related to goods imported or exported as baggage. The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the delineation of jurisdictional boundaries as prescribed by the law. The case serves as a reminder of the need for litigants to carefully consider the statutory framework before pursuing appeals to ensure that the appropriate forum is approached for redressal. The judgment also highlights the availability of alternative avenues for seeking redressal, such as the provision for revision before the Central Government under Section 129DD in cases where the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. Overall, the judgment underscores the significance of procedural compliance and the adherence to legal provisions in the realm of customs law to ensure a fair and effective dispute resolution mechanism.