Domestic Air Baggage/Personal Jewellery not automatically Governed by Customs Act/Baggage Rules: CESTAT explains Jurisdiction [Read Order]

In a recent order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the jurisdiction over four defect appeals concerning goods allegedly imported as “baggage” but intercepted from domestic terminals came under detailed scrutiny.

The tribunal, comprising Shri P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Shri M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member), examined the legal validity of appeals filed against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Cash Transactions Can Lead to Fines! Are you at risk? - Click Here

The tribunal noted that when an individual's luggage/bag, arriving from a domestic flight within India, is intercepted by officers at Chennai’s domestic airport, it cannot be presumed that such baggage falls under the purview of the Customs Act, 1962, nor can the Baggage Rules, 2016 be automatically applied to it.

The four appeals involve the following appellants: Noorul Ayin, wife of Shri Halikul Rahman, in appeal No. 42151/2024; Mohamed Ebrahim Amsath Hanifa in appeal No. 40285/2025; Yusaf Hussain Shahul Hameed in appeal No. 40287/2025; and Abdul Salam in appeal No. 40295/2025. The legal contention primarily revolved around whether the seized goods could be categorized as “baggage” under the Customs Act and the corresponding Baggage Rules.

Cash Transactions Can Lead to Fines! Are you at risk? - Click Here

Under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, appeals are not maintainable if they relate to orders regarding any goods imported or exported as “baggage.”

In the Noorul Ayin matter, the appellant, arriving on an international flight from Dubai, was intercepted at Chennai International Airport. Although her baggage was cleared of incriminating items, a search of her person revealed concealed gold jewellery comprising a chain, anklets, and bangles, which were subsequently recovered.

Cash Transactions Can Lead to Fines! Are you at risk? - Click Here

The appellant contended that the gold was not part of her baggage but worn on her person, thereby asserting that the exclusion under Section 129A(1) should not apply. Her counsel supported this position by citing a recent decision of the jurisdictional High Court, which differentiated between personal ornaments and baggage as defined under the Baggage Rules, 2016.

In contrast, the remaining three cases pertain to passengers arriving on domestic flights into Chennai from Mumbai, where officers intercepted goods during routine baggage examinations. In one instance, the appellant, Abdul Salam, had three gold coins and two high-value smartphones found in his luggage. Here, the appeal had been previously dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred; however, the matter was raised again as a defect appeal seeking redress for the seizure and imposed penalty.

Cash Transactions Can Lead to Fines! Are you at risk? - Click Here

For appellants Mohamed Ebrahim Amsath Hanifa and Yusaf Hussain Shahul Hameed, similar facts prevailed. In both cases, the apprehension resulted from the recovery of mobile devices and concealed gold jewellery from among personal effects.

The legal issue centered on whether such items were to be considered within the ambit of “baggage” as per the Customs Act and the Baggage Rules, 2016. The tribunal took into account precedents including the noted judgments in the cases of Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. Ahmed Ghani Nachiar and other landmark decisions that elaborate the scope of what constitutes baggage.

Cash Transactions Can Lead to Fines! Are you at risk? - Click Here

After review of submissions from the revenue and arguments presented by the counsel for Noorul Ayin, the tribunal ruled differently for the international and domestic cases.

While the appeal involving Noorul Ayin was returned to be filed before the appropriate appellate forum on the basis of jurisdictional issues, the other three defect appeals have been slated for further hearing, provided no additional defects are noted.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates