The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Bench while quashing the penalty on confiscated Gold Jewellery held that the transit passenger is not required to pass through customs barrier or check post.CESTAT The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Bench while quashing the penalty on confiscated Gold Jewellery held that the transit passenger is not required to pass through customs barrier or check post.
The appellant, Ajay Gupta was traveling from Bangkok to Kathmandu had arrived at Delhi Airport from Bangkok by flight and was scheduled to take the next flight to Kathmandu after a few hours. He was intercepted by the officers of the Customs Intelligence Unit (CIU) in the transit area.
The officers enquired whether he was carrying any dutiable goods to which the appellant answered in the negative. However, on being frisked by a hand-held metal detector, a beep sound was heard near his body. On further enquiry the appellant informed that he was wearing a silver coated – gold chain and a gold kada. For further enquiry and investigation the appellant was offloaded by the officers and was brought to the customs arrival hall for his detailed examination and personal search.
The hand baggage of the appellant was diverted for X-ray screening. Nothing objectionable was observed. Then the appellant was asked to pass through the door frame metal detector, after removal of all metallic items he was wearing including the silver coated gold chain and Kada, no beep was noticed. The appellant was again asked whether he wanted to declare any dutiable items to the Customs, to which the appellant once again replied in the negative.
After that, the appellant was served upon a notice under section 102 of the Customs Act and his personal search was taken in presence of two witnesses. In the personal search nothing objectionable was noticed. To ascertain the genuineness and purity of the silver coated gold jewellery, a jewellery appraiser was called by the Officers.
The Revenue urged that Section 129A of the Act prohibits the Tribunal in deciding the cases of baggage, in which case the jurisdiction lies with the Revision authority in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. Proviso to Section 129A restricts this Tribunal to decide the appeal in respect of any order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage.
On the other hand, the appellant opposing the contention of Revenue submits that first of all it is not a case of import or export of baggage, and secondly the appellant is neither an importer nor exporter, as he was a passenger in transit. Thus, there being no export or import under the facts and circumstances, there is no application of Baggage Rules under the Customs Act.
The coram of Judicial member, Anil Choudhary ruled that appellant was a passenger in transit from Bangkok to Kathmandu. The appellant was admittedly found in the transit lounge at IGI Airport, T-3, Delhi, meant for international passengers, where they can wait for the purpose of changing flight without entering into India, as such they are not required to go though any formality of immigration as well as under the provision of Customs Law.
The Tribunal held that the appellant had not violated any of the provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Foreign Trade Policy. The whole case of Revenue is misconceived and has no legs to stand.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
