2025 (6) TMI 1827 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal in terms of proviso in clause (b) to section 129A(1) of the Customs Act 1962 - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to decide any appeal in respect of any order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128A - Baggage Rules - HELD THAT - The facts of the case show that the appellant was intercepted at the exit gate of Customs Arrival Hall of RGIA after he had crossed the green channel and on further search etc. it was found that he was carrying gold biscuits 55 pieces in total concealed in his hand baggage. Therefore the undisputed fact is that the gold was recovered from the hand baggage which the appellant was carrying after exiting from the aircraft and after clearing the green channel and also after having shown nil declaration regarding any dutiable goods. Therefore in the facts of the case it is obvious that what he was carrying was covered within the definition of baggage and in that baggage he has concealed certain gold without declaring under baggage rules under which certain goods including gold to certain limit is otherwise permissible. Therefore it would tantamount to violation of baggage rules itself. It is an admitted fact that in this case inter alia section 111(l) has also been invoked on the grounds that appellant had not disclosed or declared the said gold in terms of section 77. The appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal and on this short ground itself the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Summary

The core legal question considered by the Tribunal was whether the appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962, was maintainable before the Tribunal in light of the proviso to section 129A(1)(b) of the Customs Act.

The Tribunal examined the jurisdictional issue raised as a preliminary objection by the learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the respondent. The AR contended that the appeal was barred by the proviso to section 129A(1)(b), which excludes the Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128A relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. The AR supported this contention with several precedents, including decisions from various High Courts and Tribunals, which consistently held that appeals against baggage-related orders under section 128A are not maintainable before the Tribunal.

In opposition, the appellant's advocate argued that the appeal was maintainable as the issue did not fall within the scope of the said proviso.

The Tribunal first focused on interpreting the proviso to section 129A(1)(b), which states that the Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128A if the order relates to goods imported or exported as baggage. The term 'baggage' was examined and found to include unaccompanied baggage but exclude motor vehicles. The factual matrix revealed that the appellant was intercepted at the exit gate of the Customs Arrival Hall after crossing the green channel, carrying 55 gold biscuits concealed in his hand baggage. The appellant had declared nil with respect to dutiable goods.

Given these facts, the Tribunal concluded that the gold was indeed carried as baggage within the meaning of the Customs Act. The concealment of gold without declaration was a violation of the baggage rules, which permit certain goods including gold up to specified limits. The Tribunal also noted the invocation of penal provisions under section 111(l), which penalizes any dutiable or prohibited goods not declared or in excess of declared quantities under section 77. The appellant had failed to declare the gold as required.

On this basis, the Tribunal held that the matter squarely fell within the exclusion clause of section 129A(1)(b) proviso, barring the Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order under section 128A relating to baggage. The Tribunal relied on the statutory language, factual findings, and the precedents cited by the AR to support this conclusion.

In addressing competing arguments, the Tribunal noted the appellant's contention but found it unpersuasive in light of the clear statutory exclusion and the undisputed facts that the gold was carried as baggage and was undeclared. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not deciding the merits of the case but was confined to the jurisdictional issue.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of maintainability. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed that the appellant may approach the competent authority entitled to hear appeals against such orders under the law. Further, the period during which the appeal was pending before the Tribunal was ordered not to be counted for limitation purposes, thereby protecting the appellant's right to file a timely appeal before the appropriate forum.

The significant holding of the Tribunal is that appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962, relating to goods imported or exported as baggage, are barred from being entertained by the Tribunal under the proviso to section 129A(1)(b). The Tribunal stated:

"Therefore, this Tribunal is not having jurisdiction to hear this appeal against order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the same, the appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal and on this short ground itself, the appeal is liable to be dismissed."

The Tribunal also clarified that no observations or decisions were made on the merits of the case, thereby preserving the appellant's right to contest the matter before the competent authority.

In summary, the Tribunal established the principle that the statutory exclusion under section 129A(1)(b) proviso is a jurisdictional bar to appeals before the Tribunal against baggage-related orders under section 128A. This preserves the legislative intent to channel appeals in such matters to the designated authorities and prevents multiplicity of proceedings. The decision reinforces the strict interpretation of jurisdictional provisions in customs appellate law and underscores the importance of compliance with baggage declaration requirements under the Customs Act.