9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019 in presence of the customs authorities. Since, the Currency was in excess of the permissible limit of Rs. 25,000/- per person as provided under FEMA vide Notification dated 29.12.2015, that amount over and above Rs. 25,000/- i.e. Rs. 4,09,000/- (INR) was proposed to be confiscated under Section 111 read with Section 113 of the Customs Act with the proposal of imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 112 (a) and 112 (b) (i) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had kept currency in his baggage which he was supposed to bring into India but forgot the baggage having Indian currency/Goods in said Baggage at Bali airport. The said Baggage when was brought to India and was inspected it was found carrying INR of value more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyond permissible limit currency being imported/exported in Baggage . Thus, present is the appeal against an order which has been passed with respect to Currency i.e. goods improperly exported and improperly imported as Baggage. Hence, this Tribunal is held to have no jurisdiction to try the impugned appeal - appeal disposed off. - DR. MS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri B.K. Singh, Advocate, Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rohit Issar, Authorized Representative for the Department. ORDER Prior learned counsel for appellant could begin his submissions learned Departmental Representative has objected the jurisdiction of this Tribunal in view of Section 129A of Customs Act, the proviso (a) to sub-clause 1 therein, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Baggage . 3. The Department, on the other hand, has laid emphasis upon the proviso (a) in Section 129A (1) of the Act. The said proviso restricts Tribunal from entertaining appeal against such orders as are mentioned in clause (a) to (c) of said proviso. It is impressed upon that the words used in the said proviso (a) are any goods imported or exported as Baggage . 4. It is submitted that as per definition of goods in Section 2 (22) of Customs Act, Currency is defined to be called as Good . In the present case, currency is found exported as well as imported in appellant s Baggage . Hence the sub-clause (a) of the proviso of Section 129 is applicable and appeal before the Tribunal is not maintainable. The Departmental Representative relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 111 read with Section 113 of the Customs Act with the proposal of imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 112 (a) and 112 (b) (i) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. The said proposal has been confirmed by original adjudicating authority vide order-in-original No. 01/2021-CUS-AC dated 22.07.2021. The said order has been modified by order-in-appeal bearing No. 121/2022 dated 30.08.2022 to the extent that penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed under Section 114AA of the Customs Act has been set aside. The said order has been challenged before this Tribunal. 7. For the present purpose of adjudicating the preliminary issue of Jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is to be seen as to whether the said order of confiscation is with respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tood immediately before that day ; 303 [Provided that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) if such or relates to, - (a) Any goods imported or exported as Baggage; 8. A cogent reading of all the above provisions/definitions makes it clear that irrespective currency is different from Baggage, but currency is called as goods as per Section 2 (22) of Customs Act and if it is carried in bag by the traveler on his journey abroad currency will definitely be called as the goods exported from/imported into India. Also that Sub-clause (a) of proviso to Section 129A bars Jurisdiction of this Tribunal to accept an appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed before the Revisional Authority and is not maintainable before this Tribunal. 11. The decision of Calcutta High Court in Vinod Kumar Shaw (supra) case is observed to not to be applicable to the given set of circumstances. The said decision has categorically held that question of jurisdiction is relatable to the question of fact. When the case proceeds on the basis of Baggage it has to be understood whether the subject matter is Baggage or not. The subject matter before Calcutta High court was held to be Indian currency simpliciter whereas in the present case the subject matter is the confiscation of Indian currency not only under Section 111D also under Section 111 (L) but that too beyond permissible limit currency being imported/expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
