2018 (4) TMI 1649 - CGOVT - Customs

Maintainability of revision application - Jurisdiction - respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the Government does not have jurisdiction in this matter as the gold articles worn by the respondent on her body cannot be considered as baggage - Re-export of confiscated goods - Gold - Section 80 of the Customs Act - Held that - The respondent has misconstrued the scope of baggage as suitcase bags or containers only in a narrow sense. Whereas the scope of baggage in the context of Chapter XI of the Customs Act 1962 is much wider so as to cover all the goods carried by a person as a passenger irrespective of whether the goods are stuffed in a bag or in a body or worn on the body. If the goods worn on the body are kept outside the ambit of the term baggage as envisaged in Sections 77 78 and 79 of Customs Act etc. as claimed by the respondent such goods will be regarded as cargo and all the provisions contained in the above mentioned Sections will become superfluous. Since the goods worn on a person s body cannot be considered as a cargo also the term baggage more appropriately covers such goods. Therefore the Government does not have any doubt that the present revision application involves a dispute regarding baggage only and accordingly the revision application has been correctly filed before the Government. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error by allowing re-export of gold articles under Section 80 of Customs Act? - Held that - The Government does not find the Revenue s case convincing as the respondent is undoubtedly a foreign national and the gold bangles brought by her are commonly used by the ladies. Section 80 of the Customs Act provides the facility of re-exporting of goods at the request of the passenger while returning from India to foreign country - he Government does not find the Revenue s case convincing as the respondent is undoubtedly a foreign national and the gold bangles brought by her are commonly used by the ladies. Section 80 of the Customs Act provides the facility of re-exporting of goods at the request of the passenger while returning from India to foreign country - the Government does not find any error in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Revision application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing re-export of confiscated gold.
2. Jurisdiction of the Government in the matter regarding the definition of "baggage."

Analysis:

Issue 1: Commissioner (Appeals) Decision on Re-export of Gold
The case involved a Thai national, Mrs. Anjali Dechsakphan, who was intercepted at IGI Airport with gold bangles. The Additional Commissioner confiscated the gold, but the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order, allowing re-export on payment of fines. The Revenue filed a revision application, arguing that re-export was not permissible under Section 80 of the Customs Act. The Government found the Revenue's argument unconvincing, stating that the passenger fulfilled the conditions for re-export under Section 80, as she returned to Thailand after a short visit to India. The Government upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, noting that non-declarations by foreigners had been condoned before.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Government on Baggage Definition
The respondent argued that the Government lacked jurisdiction as the gold articles were not considered baggage. The Government disagreed, stating that the term "baggage" in the Customs Act covers goods carried by a person as a passenger, whether in a bag, container, or on the body. The respondent's claim that the gold articles were not baggage contradicted her earlier position in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Government emphasized that the respondent's acceptance of re-export as a baggage matter supported the conclusion that the goods were indeed baggage. The Government rejected the respondent's reliance on a Kerala High Court decision, emphasizing the divergent facts in this case.

In conclusion, the Government rejected the revision application, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to allow the re-export of the confiscated gold. The Government affirmed its jurisdiction in the matter, emphasizing that the gold articles brought by the respondent were considered baggage under the Customs Act.