Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 692 - AT - CustomsSmuggling - Gold Bars - Baggage Rules - personal effects - applicability of New Baggage Rules which came into existence post 2009-2014 vide N/N. 30/2016 Cus-NT dated 01.03.2016 - Jurisdiction under Section 129 (A) Customs Act, 1962 to decided an appeal - HELD THAT:- New Baggage Rules have come into existence post 2009-2014 vide Notification No. 30/2016 Cus-NT dated 01.03.2016. As per Rule 2(vi) ‘personal effects’ is defined to mean things required for satisfying daily necessities but does not include Jewellery. The gold recovered though was not precisely jewellery but was definitely not the thing required for satisfying daily necessities. The substantial use of this metal in making jewellery is also a fact which takes the metal out of the scope of definition of ‘personal effects’ in Rule 2(iv) of New Baggage Rules. These observations are held sufficient to hold that the gold bars recovered from the bags of the appellants intercepted at the airport (within the Customs area) are the goods imported as Baggage. As per Section 129 (A) Customs Act, 1962, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of an order which relates to any goods exported or imported as Baggage. The appellants have brought the gold from outside India into their handbags without requisite declaration as required under section 78 of the Customs Act. Reliance placed in the case of SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA SHANTILAL VERSUS CC AHMEDABAD [2012 (9) TMI 824 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] where it was held that In this case, whatever is brought by a passenger from abroad is considered as baggage and the passenger is required to make a declaration under Section 77 and till the goods are declared and cleared from Customs area (airport) after declaration, the goods remain imported goods and the person remains the importer. Going by this analogy also, the goods in this case can be considered as imported goods only and as already mentioned earlier, Section 129A provides that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of any goods imported or exported as baggage. Accordingly, it is held that since appeal relates to Baggage, the same is not maintainable before the Tribunal - Appeal disposed off.
|