Currency is not baggage under customs law, so the Tribunal retained jurisdiction over the confiscation dispute.

Indian currency is treated separately from baggage under section 2(22) of the Customs Act, which expressly includes currency and negotiable instruments within "goods". Because the confiscation arose from alleged misdeclaration and attempted export in contravention of law under section 113(d), the dispute was not a baggage matter and the jurisdictional bar in section 129A(1) did not apply. The Tribunal therefore retained jurisdiction to decide the confiscation dispute, and the Revenue's miscellaneous application failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Indian currency could be treated as "baggage" so as to attract the jurisdictional bar under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the confiscation dispute.

Analysis: Section 2(22) of the Customs Act, 1962 makes a clear distinction between baggage and currency by separately including currency and negotiable instruments within the definition of goods. The confiscation was proceeded with under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 on allegations of misdeclaration and attempted export in contravention of law. On that basis, the matter was not one relating to baggage so as to oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the matter and the Revenue's miscellaneous application was without merit.

---