9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. JYOTISHI ] Before the appeal is taken up by this Bench, the Learned DR raises a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal in terms of proviso to Section 129A and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order passed by Commissioner(Appeals), if such order, interalia, relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage. 2. Countering this preliminary objection, the Learned Advocate for the appellant has valiantly argued that this appeal is rightfully maintainable before this Tribunal in the facts of the case and rules. He has also relied on two judgments of Tribunal namely Ahamed Gani Natchiar Vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2020 (9) TMI 267 CESTAT-Chennai] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Shri Payangadi Moidu Mohammed Ali Vs Commissioner of Appeals, The Additional Commissioner of Customs (AIR) [2017 (2) TMI 84 Madras HC]. He further points out that in Payangadi Moidu Mohammed Ali Vs Commissioner of Appeals, Hon ble High Court dealt with the appeal filed by the appellant, wherein the Tribunal has agreed with the objection of the Revenue that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain baggage matter for which the appellant has right to choose the Revisionary Authority, and thereafter dismissed the appeal. 5. In the order the Hon ble High Court, interalia, observed as under: 6. It is not in dispute that as against the order of Commissioner (Appeals-I), only a revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 8. Since the Learned Advocate has argued that in the facts of the case, the seized/confiscated goods namely gold in various forms, would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on person of passenger have been imported as baggage only by the passenger. This view is also supported by the observations of Tribunal in the case of Prakash Chandra Shantilal Vs Commissioner of Customs, Ahmadabad [2013 (290) ELT 125 (Tri-Ahmd)] Para 6 is quoted Below : 6. The contention of the ld. Counsel was that these are smuggled goods and therefore cannot be called as imported goods at all and only in the case of imported goods, imported as baggage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. According to Section 2(25) of Customs Act, 1962, imported goods means any goods brought into India from a place outside India but does not include the goods which have been cleared for home consumption. According to the definition of the goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have taken a consistent view that in the matter of Baggage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. 11. The reliance by the Learned Advocate on the case of Ahamed Gani Natchiar Vs 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 Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
