Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in gold smuggling appeal; appellant advised to seek Revisionary Authority.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal involving gold smuggling in baggage cases. The appellant's challenge against the penalty imposed for smuggling gold without declaration was dismissed, with the Tribunal advising the appellant to approach the Revisionary Authority in Delhi for such cases. The appeal was deemed not maintainable before the Tribunal due to the nature of the case involving baggage, leading to its dismissal and exclusion of time spent before the Tribunal for filing a revision.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in baggage cases involving gold smuggling

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) imposing a penalty on the appellant for attempting to smuggle gold without declaring it to Customs. The appellant was found in possession of 6 gold biscuits weighing 699.840 gms valued at Rs. 19,09,164 concealed in sandals upon arrival in India. The lower authorities ordered absolute confiscation of the gold biscuits and imposed a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. However, the lower adjudicating authority did not impose a penalty under Section 114AA, stating it applies only in cases of wilful fraudulent usage of export promotional schemes. The Department appealed, leading to the Commissioner(Appeals) modifying the order by imposing a penalty of 10% of the seized goods' value under Section 114AA while upholding other findings.

The appellant challenged the order on various grounds, but the Revenue's objection was raised during the hearing, stating that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal as it related to a baggage case. Citing a judgment of the Madras High Court and other decisions, the appellant argued for the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, after considering the submissions and precedents, the Tribunal held that the case involved baggage and, therefore, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain such cases. The Revisionary Authority in Delhi was deemed to have the power to decide such cases. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with the appellant advised to approach the Revisionary Authority. The time spent pursuing the remedy before the Tribunal would be excluded for computing the limitation in filing a revision. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the COD application was also dismissed.

---