9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative. 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 provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat 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. - Customs Appeal No. 30006 of 2023 - FINAL ORDER No. A/30198/2023 - Dated:- 26-7-2023 - HON BLE Mr. A. K. JYOTISHI , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Shabaz, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A Rangadham, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER [ ORDER PER : A. K. JYOTISHI ] Before the appeal is taken up by this Bench, the Learned DR raised 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 appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing judgments: i) Anees Fathima Bande Nawaz Vs Commissioner of Customs, AIR-CC AIRPORT, Chennai-I [2019 (365) ELT 630 (Tribunal-Chennai)] ii) Payangadi Moidu Mohammed Ali Vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2017 (357) ELT 577 (Tri-Chennai)] iii) Prakash Chandra Shantilal Vs Commissioner of Customs, Ahmadabad [2013 (290) ELT 125 (Tri-Ahmd)] iv) Y.R. Iyer Vs Commissioner of Customs, Ahmadabad [2010 (262) ELT 1115 (Tri-Ahmd)] 4. He has also relied on the judgment 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 Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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/-. 7. Therefore, 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. Therefore, if any good whether, dutiable or prohibited, is in excess of per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n goods falling under annexure-I, II III from the purview of the rules. A careful reading would, however, lead to conclusion that goods may not be eligible for certain relaxations etc but it does not change their nature from baggage . Any goods brought by passenger from abroad is treated as import into India and leviable to applicable customs duty. The baggage may not be covered under Baggage Rules for the purpose of relaxation/duty etc but it does not alter the fact that goods in the accompanied or unaccompanied baggage or 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he importer. Going by this analogy also, the goods in this case can be considered as imported goods only and as already mentioned earlier, Section 129A provides that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of any goods imported or exported as baggage. 10. I have also gone through the judgments cited above. Hon ble Madras High Court Judgment and specifically Shri Payangadi Moidu Mohammed Ali Vs Commissioner of Appeals, The Additional Commissioner of Customs (AIR) [2017 (2) TMI 84 Madras HC], I find that the Tribunals 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
