9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 463 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - power of Tribunal to decide any appeal in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 A of the Customs Act 1962 relating to any goods imported or exported as Baggage - goods recovered from the person of a passenger are a part of her baggage in terms of proviso (a) to Section 129A (1) of the Customs Act 1962 or not - HELD THAT - There is no doubt that what was answered by the Hon ble jurisdictional High court and extracted at para 13 above related to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide any appeal in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 A of the Customs Act 1962 relating to any goods imported or exported as Baggage and that Baggage under the 2016 Rules includes jewellery worn on the person. In DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Vs PUSPHA L. TOLANI 2024 (8) TMI 332 - SC ORDER decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court and cited by the appellant in their favour the passenger on arrival in India opted to walk through the Green Channel . She was intercepted and on an examination of her baggage 28 packages containing 44 items of jewellery worth Rs. 1.27 crores were recovered from two hand bags. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the respondent did not violate the provisions of Section 77 of the Act since the necessary declaration was made by the respondent by passing through the Green Channel. This is itself a declaration that a passenger had no dutiable or prohibited articles and is devised with a view to facilitate expeditious and smooth clearance of the passenger. After a harmonious reading of Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules 1998 read with Appendix E (2) of the Rules with the facts of the case the Hon ble Court held that the respondent was not carrying any dutiable goods because the goods were the bona fide jewellery of the respondent for her personal use and was intended to be taken out of India. Hence the issue was decided in terms of the Baggage Rules only. The Customs Act 1962 is the main legislation granting powers to the Government to levy and collect duties of customs on goods imported into and exported from India. The Baggage Rules 2016 has been framed under the Customs Act 1962. They are a set of guiding principles which come into play for clearing baggage both accompanied and un-accompanied - of individuals who travel to India from abroad - between their importation and the time when it exits the international airport upon clearance and loses its presumtive identity as baggage . Hence once the luggage / bag which accompanies an individual arriving from a domestic airport in India during the aircrafts domestic run is intercepted by the officers at the Chennai domestic airport there cannot be a presumption that it is covered under the Customs Act 1962 and to which the Baggage Rules 2016 can automatically apply. Imported consumer goods are freely available within the country and cannot be presumed to be goods improperly imported or to be smuggled goods if found on the person or in the luggage of individuals arriving at domestic airports while the flight is on a domestic run. A presumption can be drawn only from facts and not from other presumptions by a process of probable and logical reasoning . Hence the articles allegedly found / recovered from an individual s luggage or from his person in the circumstances cannot be presumed to be part of baggage as defined under the Customs Act 1962. The onus of proof would be on the department unless provided for otherwise by the statute and an appeal against any order passed by a Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard would hence lie before the Tribunal. Conclusion - i) The presumption of goods being part of baggage does not apply and the Tribunal retains jurisdiction to hear appeals related to such cases. ii) The appeal involving Ms. Noorul Ayin be returned for filing before the appropriate appellate forum while the other appeals could proceed before the Tribunal if no other defects existed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue presented and considered in this judgment was the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain appeals concerning goods imported as "baggage" under the Customs Act, 1962. Specifically, the question was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over appeals related to confiscated goods found on passengers arriving from abroad or domestic flights, in light of the proviso to Section 129A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which excludes appeals related to "baggage" from the Tribunal's jurisdiction. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 129A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962: Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 129A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, outlines the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal. The proviso to this section specifically excludes appeals related to goods imported or exported as "baggage" from the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Tribunal considered various precedents, including the judgment of the Madras High Court in Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs Ahmed Ghani Nachiar, which held that "baggage" under the 2016 Rules includes jewellery worn on the person, thus falling within the exclusion under Section 129A (1). Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the goods recovered from passengers, particularly jewellery worn on the person, constituted "baggage" under the Customs Act and Baggage Rules, 2016. The Tribunal referred to the expansive definition of "baggage" under the 2016 Rules, which includes jewellery worn on the person. The Tribunal also considered the principle of judicial comity and the need to adhere to precedents set by higher courts and co-equal benches. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that in the case of Ms. Noorul Ayin, gold jewellery was found concealed on her person upon arrival from abroad. In contrast, the other appellants arrived on domestic flights, and their cases involved goods allegedly imported as part of their luggage or person. Application of law to facts: For Ms. Noorul Ayin, the Tribunal found that the jewellery concealed on her person fell within the definition of "baggage" under the 2016 Rules, thus excluding the Tribunal's jurisdiction. For the other appellants arriving on domestic flights, the Tribunal held that the presumption of goods being part of "baggage" did not apply, as the Baggage Rules pertain to international arrivals. Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that the jewellery was not part of "baggage" but found it unpersuasive in light of the expansive definition under the 2016 Rules. The Tribunal also addressed the appellant's reliance on a single judge's decision in Ms. Sabeena Mohammed Maideen, which was stayed by a Division Bench, thus lacking current legal effect. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal involving Ms. Noorul Ayin due to the exclusion under Section 129A (1) for "baggage." However, it found jurisdiction over the appeals involving domestic arrivals, as the presumption of "baggage" did not apply to domestic flights. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that "baggage" under the Baggage Rules, 2016, includes jewellery worn or concealed on the person of an individual arriving in India from abroad, thereby excluding the Tribunal's jurisdiction for such cases under Section 129A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to established precedents and judicial comity, particularly in tax matters governed by national statutes. For domestic arrivals, the Tribunal held that the presumption of goods being part of "baggage" does not apply, and the Tribunal retains jurisdiction to hear appeals related to such cases. The Tribunal directed that the appeal involving Ms. Noorul Ayin be returned for filing before the appropriate appellate forum, while the other appeals could proceed before the Tribunal if no other defects existed.
|
