CESTAT Lacks Jurisdiction on Appeal Over Goods Imported or Exported as Domestic Baggage as per S. 129A(1) of Customs Act [Read Order]

Recently, the Chennai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) clarified that there cannot be a presumption that the baggage that is carried by a person arriving from a domestic airport in India during the aircraft's domestic run is covered by the Customs Act, 1962, to which the Baggage Rules, 2016 can automatically apply. Read More: Non-compliance with GST Rules for Job Work Transport: Allahabad HC Confirms Penalty Due to Incomplete Challan When appellant Noorul Ayin chose the green channel at the departure of the arrival hall at Chennai Anna International Airport's International Terminal after arriving from Dubai, the Air Intelligence Unit of Customs intercepted him. One chain, two anklets, and two bangles had been found concealed in the undergarments and recovered during the search of the "person," but no other incriminating items or documents were discovered in the baggage other from her personal belongings. GST Manual (Acts & Rules) Click here The recovered yellow metals were suspected of being gold, therefore a gold appraiser was summoned. After examining them, it was determined that they were 24 carat gold overall, weighing 598 grams and worth Rs. 31,37,108. Using Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellant challenged the Commissioner's (Appeals) order before the Tribunal. The Revenue, however, objected, arguing that the Tribunal lacked the authority to judge any appeal about an order issued by the Commissioner (A) under Section 128A concerning any commodities that were imported or exported as "Baggage." Read More: MCA Imposes Penalty on Company and Directors for Non-Compliance with S.118(10) of Companies Act The Bench found that after the Customs Officers intercepted the appellant-passenger, they searched her baggage but no 'incriminating goods or documents' were found in it, but on search of her 'person', one chain, two anklets and two bangles all made of gold were allegedly found concealed in her undergarments and the same were recovered. The question was whether the goods recovered from the person of a passenger are a part of her “baggage”, so that the appeal is excluded from the jurisdiction of CESTAT in terms of proviso (a) to Section 129A(1), of the Customs Act, 1962. Handbook on Project Reports by R.K. Garg Click here It was observed that in case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Pushpa L. Tolani , the Supreme Court held that the Assessee was not carrying any dutiable goods because the goods were her bona fide jewellery for her personal use and was intended to be taken out of India, and hence the issue was decided in terms of the Baggage Rules only. Read More: China Seeks India’s Support Against ‘US Tariff Abuse’ as Trade War with Trump Escalates The Bench found there is by and large a convergence of views among the Constitutional Courts on the applicability of the Baggage Rules 2016 to gold jewellery found on an individual or carried in his/ her baggage while arriving in India from abroad. According to the two-member bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member), imported consumer goods are freely accessible within the nation and cannot be assumed to be illegally imported or smuggled if they are discovered on the person or in the luggage of people arriving at domestic airports while the flight is operating domestically. GST Appeals & Appellate Procedures Click here The tribunal ruled that abruptly altering the established procedures and practices that have existed since the Finance Act of 1984 would be extremely problematic for the appellants, particularly when it comes to passengers. Thus, the CESTAT stated that "under the Baggage Rules 2016, 'baggage' includes jewelry worn or concealed on the person of an individual arriving in India from abroad, and thus this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal pertaining to 'any goods imported or exported as baggage' as per the exclusions carved out by the proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962." Having noted the defect of jurisdiction, the CESTAT opined that the Defect Appeal must be returned to the appellant for being filed before the appropriate appellate forum. Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates