9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 483 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain appeal - Jurisdiction u/s 129A of Customs Act, the proviso (a) to sub-clause 1 - Confiscation of goods - Indian currency/Goods - Baggage Rules - HELD THAT - It is clear that the appellant was traveling back from Bali to India, however, had forgot his hand bag at Bali Airport along with INR 4,34,000/- therein. It is apparent that the Indian Currency of INR 4,34,000/- was handed over in India by the airlines staff to the appellant on 09.07.2019 in presence of the customs authorities. Since, the Currency was in excess of the permissible limit of Rs. 25,000/- per person as provided under FEMA vide Notification dated 29.12.2015, that amount over and above Rs. 25,000/- i.e. Rs. 4,09,000/- (INR) was proposed to be confiscated under Section 111 read with Section 113 of the Customs Act with the proposal of imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 112 (a) and 112 (b) (i) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had kept currency in his baggage which he was supposed to bring into India but forgot the baggage having Indian currency/Goods in said Baggage at Bali airport. The said Baggage when was brought to India and was inspected it was found carrying INR of value more than permissible one. The order confiscating the same has been passed specifically under Section 111 (L), considering the recovered currency being beyond permissible limit (Prohibited) as Goods imported in Baggage without a declaration required under Section 77 of Customs Act. The very perusal shows that the context of confiscation of Indian Currency in the present appeal, is one recovered from Baggage which the appellant has failed to declare under Section 77 of the Act. The penalty has also been imposed under Section 111D and 113D due to import being contrary to the prohibition imposed under FEMA is sufficient to hold that the context of the present appeal is Baggage . In terms of Section 129A, sub-clause (a) of the proviso therein, the appeal in such case has to be filed before the Revisional Authority and is not maintainable before this Tribunal. The decision of Calcutta High Court in Vinod Kumar Shaw 2010 (12) TMI 1335 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT case is observed to not to be applicable to the given set of circumstances. The said decision has categorically held that question of jurisdiction is relatable to the question of fact. When the case proceeds on the basis of Baggage it has to be understood whether the subject matter is Baggage or not. The subject matter before Calcutta High court was held to be Indian currency simpliciter whereas in the present case the subject matter is the confiscation of Indian currency not only under Section 111D also under Section 111 (L) but that too beyond permissible limit currency being imported/exported in Baggage . Thus, present is the appeal against an order which has been passed with respect to Currency i.e. goods improperly exported and improperly imported as Baggage. Hence, this Tribunal is held to have no jurisdiction to try the impugned appeal - appeal disposed off.
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain appeal against the order of confiscation of Indian Currency recovered from appellant's bag.
Summary: The appellant challenged the order of absolute confiscation of Indian currency exceeding the permissible limit under FEMA. The appellant argued that the subject matter of the appeal is Indian Currency, not 'Baggage', citing relevant legal precedents. On the other hand, the Department emphasized the proviso in Section 129A of the Customs Act, stating that currency found in the appellant's bag falls under the definition of 'Goods' and 'Baggage', thus making the appeal not maintainable before the Tribunal. Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal examined the factual background of the case, where the appellant left his bag containing Indian Currency at Bali Airport, which was later confiscated upon importation into India. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of 'Baggage' and 'Goods' under the Customs Act and concluded that even though currency is distinct from baggage, if carried in a bag by a traveler, it qualifies as goods imported/exported as 'Baggage'. The Tribunal held that the order of confiscation pertained to currency found in the appellant's baggage, beyond the permissible limit, and imposed penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act. As per the proviso in Section 129A, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order related to goods imported/exported as Baggage. Consequently, the appeal was directed to be returned to the appellant for seeking appropriate statutory remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. In conclusion, the Tribunal determined that the appeal was against an order concerning currency improperly exported/imported as Baggage, thereby lacking jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal. The appellant was advised to pursue revision before the appropriate authority within the specified timeframe, with the exclusion of the impugned proceedings period from the limitation calculation.
|
