2018 (8) TMI 1530 - AT - Customs

Tribunal dismisses appeal over undeclared gold worn as jewelry, advises seeking recourse for baggage

Anees Fathima Bande Nawaz Versus Commissioner of Customs, Air-CC Airport, Chennai I

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it lacked jurisdiction over goods imported as baggage, including jewelry not classified as ... Smuggling - non-declared goods - Gold chain, carried on her body - Baggage Rules - N/N. 30/2016 Cus.- NT dated 01.03.2016 - Absolute Confiscation - Penalty - Held that:- 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 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. Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal over goods imported as baggage, Definition of 'personal effects' under New Baggage Rules, Maintainability of the appealIn this case, the issue revolved around the jurisdiction of the Tribunal over goods imported as baggage, specifically focusing on the definition of 'personal effects' under the New Baggage Rules and the maintainability of the appeal. The appellant, who had not declared gold worn on her body, faced confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but set aside one penalty. The Tribunal had to determine whether the appeal was maintainable before them.The learned AR argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide appeals related to goods imported or exported as baggage, citing Section 129(A) of the Customs Act. Referring to the New Baggage Rules, he contended that even jewelry worn on the person did not qualify as 'personal effects' and should be considered baggage, requiring a revision before the concerned authority instead of an appeal to the Tribunal.After hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered the preliminary objection raised by the AR regarding the New Baggage Rules. The definition of 'personal effects' under Rule 2(vi) excluded jewelry, indicating that the gold chains worn by the appellant constituted baggage rather than personal effects. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, as the gold chains fell under the category of baggage. The appellant was advised to file an appeal before the appropriate forum, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.