TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired for satisfying daily necessities, but does not include jewellery. Thus, the contention of the appellant that the gold chains were worn on her person and does not fall within the category of baggage cannot be accepted. As the gold chains fall within the category of ‘baggage’ and not ‘personal effects’, the present appeal is not maintainable - appeal dismissed being not maintainable. - A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process of law, the original authority ordered absolute confiscation of the two gold chains, weighing 259 gms and valued at ₹ 7,92,281/- and imposed penalty of ₹ 75,000/- under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Section 114AA of the Act ibid. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order except for setting aside the penalty imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both sides. 5. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned AR adverting to the New Baggage Rules, which has come into existence 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. Thus, the contention of the appellant that the gold chains wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
