Baggage classification bars Tribunal appeal, with remedy instead lying under the statutory appellate route.

Gold concealed on a person but not worn as jewellery was treated as outside the scope of "personal effects" under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and therefore as baggage. On that footing, an appeal to the Tribunal was barred because section 129A(1)(a) excludes orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. The proper remedy was the statutory appeal under section 129DD, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under section 129A was maintainable before the Tribunal when the goods were treated as baggage, and whether the appellant was required to pursue the remedy under section 129DD.

Analysis: The definition of "personal effects" under the Baggage Rules, 2016 excludes jewellery, and gold concealed on the person but not worn as jewellery was treated as falling outside personal effects. On that basis, the imported gold was held to fall within the ambit of baggage. Since section 129A(1)(a) bars an appeal to the Tribunal in respect of orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The appropriate course was the statutory remedy under section 129DD.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable before the Tribunal and the appellant's remedy lay under section 129DD.

---