CESTAT Lacks Jurisdiction in Gold Smuggling Case Involving Passenger Baggage [Read Order]

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain appeals in cases involving passenger baggage under the proviso to Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Deep Rastogi, the appellant, along with Alok Katta and Upendra Agarwal, challenged the penalty imposed on them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The penalties were imposed following an incident where one Prashant Pandey was intercepted by DRI officers after passing through the green channel at the IGI Airport on 17.06.2018. He was found carrying 667 grams of gold concealed in his baggage.

After the investigation, show cause notices were issued proposing penalties on the appellants for their alleged involvement. The adjudicating authority confirmed the penalties, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. Aggrieved by the order, the appellants approached the CESTAT.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The appellants' counsel argued that they were wrongly penalized and that there was no evidence of their direct involvement. They sought to challenge the imposition of the penalty and the findings of the lower authorities.

The revenue counsel argued that the appeals were not maintainable before the CESTAT under the proviso to Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, because the case arose from passenger baggage proceedings. The provision specifically excludes appeals to the Tribunal in matters relating to baggage.

The single-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) observed that the seizure and penalty arose from a case of passenger baggage, as the gold was found in the baggage of a passenger arriving from abroad.

The tribunal held that in such circumstances, the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order does not lie before the Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable with liberty granted to the appellants to seek remedy before the appropriate forum. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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