The Mumbai bench of the Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on Thursday held that the gold found in the foot band worn for medical purposes can’t be treated as “Personal Effects” as per Baggage Rules.
The department passed an order against the appellant finding that the gold was found in the foot band worn for medical purpose on both the feet of the appellant, well-hidden/covered with black socks, shoes put over them. This is claimed as having been found on the “person of the appellant‟ but not found in the baggage, the appellant, therefore, has filed an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.
Challenging the maintainability of the appeal, the Revenue contended that the appeal is not maintainable before this forum since there was an attempt to import gold through accompanied baggage in the concealed form and hence, it is the Section 129DD that applies, for which the only remedy available to the assessee is to prefer a review petition before the proper authority.
Allowing the plea of the Revenue, Judicial Member P. Dinesha held that “Baggage Rules, 2016 defines “personal effects” to mean things required for satisfying daily necessities but does not include jewelry. So, when the jewelry on a person is itself excluded, the gold that was not worn but hidden gets automatically excluded. Further, Section 129A(1)(a) makes it clear that no appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in respect of any order which relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage. The gold which is imported here having been excluded by the definition of “personal effects” under Baggage Rules ibid, automatically falls within the ambit of baggage, and hence, I agree that no appeal could be entertained by this forum. The appellant can only invoke Section 129DD if he is so advised and accordingly, this appeal is held not maintainable.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
