2023 (8) TMI 64 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to decide any appeal in respect of any order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) - proviso to Section 129A of CA - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that Ms. Ayesha Begum, who arrived from Jeddah to Hyderabad by Flight No. AI 966 dated 09.02.2020 was intercepted after passing through the Green Channel. Further investigation at the Air Port itself revealed that the passenger was carrying dutiable goods, which were not declared to the Customs Officer. The Officers also asked the passenger to produce Indian Customs Declaration Form supposed to be filed by her, for which she replied negative. Finally, the Customs seized one yellow metal chain, two cut yellow metal bars and two bangles found concealed of her body, totally weighing 788.510 gms and valued at Rs.32,09,118/-. Subsequently, a show cause notice was confirmed and the entire gold was absolutely confiscated. The Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing the matter and the arguments and submissions upheld the order-in-original but reduced the penalty from Rs. 6,41,000/- to Rs. 3,41,000/-. 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 through the Green Channel. 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 - 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. Hon ble Madras High Court Judgment and specifically SHRI PAYANGADI MOIDU MOHAMMED ALI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 2016 (8) TMI 393 - CESTAT CHENNAI , it is found that the Tribunals have taken a consistent view that in the matter of Baggage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The reliance by the Learned Advocate on the case of M/S AHAMED GANI NATCHIAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CHENNAI 2020 (9) TMI 267 - CESTAT CHENNAI would also not help in as much as the Tribunal was deciding the matter on the direction of the Hon ble High Court and it was also noted that the Revenue had not raised this issue of jurisdiction before the Hon ble High Court. However, the Learned DR points out that on appeal by the Revenue against this order of the Tribunal entertaining the appeal filed by the appellant, the Hon ble High Court disposed off the petition by making an observation that in terms of the proviso to Section 129A of the Customs, Act and appeal lies only before Revisionary Authority and therefore set aside the order of the Tribunal as bad in law. There are no hesitation in holding that in this case the gold were imported by passenger in the nature of baggage, and therefore the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed as not being maintainable.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad in deciding appeal related to confiscated goods imported as baggage.

Jurisdiction of Tribunal:
The Learned DR raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal under the proviso to Section 129A, arguing that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide appeals related to goods imported or exported as baggage following an order by Commissioner(Appeals).

Appellant's Argument:
The Appellant's Advocate contended that the appeal is rightfully maintainable before the Tribunal based on the facts and rules of the case. Citing judgments of Ahamed Gani Natchiar and Asalam Khan, the Advocate argued that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Additionally, reliance was placed on Baggage Rules 2016 to support the claim that the confiscated goods were not in the nature of baggage, thus falling outside the proviso of Section 129A.

Revenue's Argument:
The Learned DR relied on various case laws to support the argument that the matter falls within the proviso to Section 129A. The confiscated goods were deemed to fall within the scope of the proviso, as per judgments such as Anees Fathima Bande Nawaz and Payangadi Moidu Mohammed Ali.

Analysis of Confiscated Goods:
The case involved a passenger arriving from Jeddah with undeclared dutiable goods, leading to their interception by Customs. The goods, including gold items, were seized and subsequently confiscated. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but reduced the penalty. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the goods in relation to Baggage Rules 2016 and relevant provisions of the Customs Act, concluding that the confiscated goods were indeed considered as baggage.

Definition of Baggage:
The term "baggage" was examined in light of Customs Act definitions, emphasizing that goods imported as baggage are subject to duty and restrictions under Trade Policy. While certain relaxations exist for baggage under Baggage Rules, goods brought by passengers from abroad are treated as imports into India, regardless of eligibility for duty exemptions.

Judicial Precedents:
Judicial precedents, including the Madras High Court judgment and Tribunal decisions, consistently held that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in baggage-related matters. The case law highlighted the distinction between imported goods and baggage, reinforcing the Tribunal's limited jurisdiction in such cases.

Decision and Recommendation:
After thorough analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the confiscated goods were indeed imported as baggage, rendering the appeal not maintainable before the Tribunal. The appellant was advised to pursue an appeal before the Revisionary Authority if desired. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision was based on the clear understanding that the confiscated goods fell within the category of baggage, aligning with the proviso to Section 129A. The judgment emphasized the importance of jurisdictional boundaries in cases involving goods imported as baggage, as established by legal provisions and precedents.