2019 (6) TMI 645 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of Tribunal to hear the appeal - Section 129 of Customs Act - goods imported as Baggage - illegal import of Gold bars - HELD THAT - The baggage is an aspect of Customs Network through which common man going abroad or returning from abroad comes in contact with Customs as per Baggage Rules, 2016 which have replaced the Baggage Rules, 1998. It is only the used personal effects and new articles upto the value of ₹ 50,000/- per person (except infant) which are allowed duty free if carried on person or in accompanied baggage. The appellant herein was found carrying 8 gold bars weighing 933.12 grams valuing double to 81758 grams on his person and was coming neither from Nepal, nor Bhutan nor even from Mayanmar but from Riyad. It is also an admitted fact that appellant was often travelling Riyad-India Sector. Resultantly, the Baggage Rules, 2016 are applicable to the given facts and circumstances. The Appeal against the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) which relates to the goods imported as baggage is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Resultantly, the impugned Appeal is hereby returned to the appellant to seek appropriate remedy before appropriate forum, if any, however keeping in view the applicable laws including that of limitation. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeal in a case related to goods imported as baggage.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal:
The appeal was preferred against an order proposing the confiscation of gold bars recovered from the appellant at the airport. The appellant claimed that the original invoice, which was in possession of the Customs Department, could not be produced as it was taken at the time of interception. The appellant argued that the gold bars were purchased for his sister's wedding, and the only evidence of purchase was the invoice. The Department contended that the appeal could not be heard by the Tribunal due to Section 129A of the Customs Act, which bars appeals related to goods imported as baggage. The Department denied that the original invoice was ever produced by the appellant. The Tribunal considered this jurisdictional issue and referred to the proviso of Section 129A, which restricts appeals concerning goods imported as baggage. It noted that the appellant was found carrying gold bars weighing 933.12 grams while returning from Riyad, not falling under the duty-free allowance criteria. As per the Baggage Rules, 2016, only personal effects and new articles up to the value of ?50,000 per person are allowed duty-free. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal against the order related to goods imported as baggage was not maintainable before it. The appeal was returned to the appellant to seek remedy before the appropriate forum, considering the applicable laws and limitations. The Registry was instructed to retain a copy of the appeal papers and return the original papers to the appellant, thereby disposing of the appeal.

This judgment primarily addresses the jurisdictional issue concerning the Appellate Tribunal's authority to hear appeals related to goods imported as baggage under the Customs Act. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions and rules to determine the applicability of the appeal in the context of the confiscated gold bars carried by the appellant. The decision emphasizes the limitations imposed by Section 129A and the Baggage Rules, 2016, on appeals involving goods imported as baggage, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.