TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Dismisses Appeals on Airport Gold Chain Confiscation</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the appeals challenging an order upholding confiscation of gold chains from passenger baggage at the airport terminal. The issue ... Maintainability of appeal - Absolute confiscation - kadiwali gold chain - passenger baggage rules - whether the appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction? - HELD THAT:- The appeal can be disposed of only on the issue of jurisdiction without going into the merit of the case. Both the sides have relied upon contrary judgments. However, as per the Hon’ble Madras High Court judgments in the case of SHRI PAYANGADI MOIDU MOHAMMED ALI VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR) [2017 (2) TMI 84 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], in the identical issue appeal does not lie before the Tribunal whereas the competent authority is revisionary authority (Government of India). In the present case, the appeal before this Tribunal is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed as infructuous. Issues: 1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal regarding appeals against order in original passed by the Adjudicating Authority in a case of passenger baggage confiscation.Analysis:The judgment in question pertains to appeals directed against an order in appeal dated 0.06.2021, where the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order in original passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The order in original entailed absolute confiscation of gold chains seized from passengers at the airport terminal, along with imposition of penalties under various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The primary contention raised was regarding the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds of jurisdiction. The Learned Authorized Representative argued that since the case involved passenger baggage and the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal was not maintainable before the Tribunal. This argument was supported by reference to various judgments, including Payangadi Moidu Mohammed Ali Vs. Commr of Appeals, Chennai (2017), Anees Fathima Bande Nawaz Vs. CC, AIR- CC, Airport, Chennai-I (2019), and others.On the other hand, the appellant's counsel contended that the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal, citing judgments such as Ahmed Gani Natchiar Vs. CC (2020), R N Palaksha Vs. CC (2019), and others. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal focused on the issue of jurisdiction without delving into the merits of the case. The Tribunal noted the conflicting judgments cited by both sides and referred to the Hon'ble Madras High Court judgment in the case of Payangadi Moidu Mohammed Ali Vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai (2017), which highlighted that in similar cases, the appeal does not lie before the Tribunal, and the competent authority is the revisionary authority (Government of India). Consequently, the Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision, concluded that the appeal before the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous, with the appellants granted liberty to approach the revisionary authority, the Government of India, with a revision application. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 05.01.2023.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
