2023 (7) TMI 1191 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to decide any appeal in respect of any order passed by Commissioner(Appeals), relating to any goods imported or exported as baggage - HELD THAT - From the facts of the case, it is clear that the golds were found on person of the appellant, when she arrived from abroad and only on interception by the Customs at the time of exiting. A holistic reading of Baggage Rules 2016 and the relevant legal provisions under Customs Act would make it ample clear that under the Customs Act, specially Section 111(l) and 111(m), Section 77, 78 and 79 etc., all goods would be covered within definition of Baggage. Therefore, if any good whether, dutiable or prohibited, is in excess of permissible limit or beyond the scope of Baggage Rules, the same shall be liable for penal action in terms of Section 111(l) and 111(m), even though it will continue to be covered by Baggage Rules itself. Thus, there is a clear understanding that the confiscated goods were in the category of baggage and therefore under Section 129A proviso, this matter cannot be decided by the Tribunal. When the baggage is imported as goods, such goods are liable to duty and other restrictions under Trade Policy. However, by virtue certain excuses and Rules, certain relaxations have been given for baggage (which would obvious include the accompanied as well as unaccompanied baggage as also goods on the passenger) from the applicable customs duty and restriction. The baggage Rules provides for duty free clearance for bona fide baggage upto certain counts and also excludes specifically from such benefit certain goods falling under annexure-I, II III from the purview of the rules - Any goods brought by passenger from abroad is treated as import into India and leviable to applicable customs duty. The baggage may not be covered under Baggage Rules for the purpose of relaxation/duty etc but it does not alter the fact that goods in the accompanied or unaccompanied baggage or on person of passenger have been imported as baggage only by the passenger. In this case the gold were imported by passenger in the nature of baggage, and therefore the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal - Further, it is also observed that the appellant might have some bonafide belief that the appeals were maintainable before the Tribunal instead of Revisionary Authority, therefore, she may, if she so desires, prefer an appeal to Revisionary Authority against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeal is dismissed as not being maintainable.

Summary

Issues involved:
The jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad to decide appeals related to goods imported or exported as baggage under Section 129A proviso.

Comprehensive details of the judgment:

1. Preliminary Objection by Learned DR: The Learned DR raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal under Section 129A proviso. The objection was based on the contention that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide appeals related to goods imported or exported as baggage, as per the proviso to Section 129A.

2. Appellant's Argument: The Learned Advocate for the appellant argued that the appeal is rightfully maintainable before the Tribunal based on the facts of the case and relevant rules. He cited judgments of the Tribunal and relied on Baggage Rules 2016 to support his argument that the confiscated goods in this case were not in the nature of baggage, thus falling outside the scope of the proviso to Section 129A.

3. DR's Argument: The Learned DR countered the appellant's argument by citing various case laws that supported the view that the confiscated goods fell within the scope of the proviso to Section 129A. The DR relied on judgments from different Tribunals and the High Court to establish that the matter at hand pertained to goods imported or exported as baggage, thus making the appeal not maintainable before the Tribunal.

4. Observations and Decision: The Tribunal analyzed the facts of the case where dutiable goods were found on the person of the appellant upon arrival from abroad. The Tribunal noted that under Customs Act provisions, all goods, including those in the category of baggage, are subject to certain duties and restrictions. The Tribunal emphasized that even if goods do not qualify for certain relaxations under Baggage Rules, they are still considered as baggage under the Customs Act.

5. Definition of Baggage: The Tribunal highlighted that the term "baggage" is not specifically defined in Baggage Rules 2016, and therefore, the Customs Act's definition of baggage as goods was relied upon. The Tribunal explained that goods imported as baggage are subject to duty and restrictions under Trade Policy, irrespective of eligibility for certain relaxations under Baggage Rules.

6. Consistent View on Jurisdiction: Referring to previous judgments, including a High Court decision, the Tribunal reiterated that in matters concerning baggage, the Tribunal consistently held that it lacks jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that goods brought into India from abroad, including those on a passenger's person, are considered as imported goods and fall within the definition of baggage.

7. Dismissal of Appeal: Considering the arguments presented and the nature of the confiscated goods, the Tribunal concluded that the gold imported by the appellant was in the nature of baggage. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable before the Tribunal, and the appellant was advised to prefer an appeal to the Revisionary Authority if desired.

8. Final Decision: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on grounds of lack of maintainability before the Tribunal due to the nature of the confiscated goods being considered as baggage under the Customs Act.

End of Judgment Summary