2023 (7) TMI 1191 - AT - Customs

Imported goods deemed baggage under Customs Act; Appeal dismissed by Tribunal.

Juweria Fatima Versus Pr, Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad – GST

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the confiscated goods imported by the appellant were considered as baggage under the Customs Act. As a ... Maintainability of appeal - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to decide any appeal in respect of any order passed by Commissioner(Appeals), relating to any goods imported or exported as baggage - HELD THAT:- From the facts of the case, it is clear that the golds were found on person of the appellant, when she arrived from abroad and only on interception by the Customs at the time of exiting. A holistic reading of Baggage Rules 2016 and the relevant legal provisions under Customs Act would make it ample clear that under the Customs Act, specially Section 111(l) and 111(m), Section 77, 78 and 79 etc., all “goods” would be covered within definition of Baggage. Therefore, if any good whether, dutiable or prohibited, is in excess of permissible limit or beyond the scope of Baggage Rules, the same shall be liable for penal action in terms of Section 111(l) and 111(m), even though it will continue to be covered by Baggage Rules itself. Thus, there is a clear understanding that the confiscated goods were in the category of “baggage” and therefore under Section 129A proviso, this matter cannot be decided by the Tribunal. When the baggage is “imported” as goods, such goods are liable to duty and other restrictions under Trade Policy. However, by virtue certain excuses and Rules, certain relaxations have been given for baggage (which would obvious include the accompanied as well as unaccompanied baggage as also goods on the passenger) from the applicable customs duty and restriction. The baggage Rules provides for duty free clearance for “bona fide baggage” upto certain counts and also excludes specifically from such benefit certain goods falling under annexure-I, II & III from the purview of the rules - Any goods brought by passenger from abroad is treated as import into India and leviable to applicable customs duty. The baggage may not be covered under Baggage Rules for the purpose of relaxation/duty etc but it does not alter the fact that goods in the accompanied or unaccompanied baggage or on person of passenger have been imported as “baggage” only by the passenger. In this case the gold were imported by passenger in the nature of baggage, and therefore the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal - Further, it is also observed that the appellant might have some bonafide belief that the appeals were maintainable before the Tribunal instead of Revisionary Authority, therefore, she may, if she so desires, prefer an appeal to Revisionary Authority against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeal is dismissed as not being maintainable. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order of Commissioner (Appeals) where the confiscated goods were imported or exported as baggage, in light of the proviso to Section 129A. 2. Whether gold articles seized from a passenger on arrival (found concealed on person) constitute 'baggage' for the purposes of the Customs Act and the Baggage Rules, 2016, thereby attracting the proviso to Section 129A that bars Tribunal jurisdiction. 3. Whether the applicability (or inapplicability) of benefits/relaxations under the Baggage Rules, 2016 changes the legal character of goods as 'baggage' for jurisdictional purposes. 4. The effect of prior Tribunal and High Court decisions on jurisdictional question where goods seized from passengers are claimed to be smuggled/non-baggage. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Tribunal jurisdiction under proviso to Section 129A Legal framework: The proviso to Section 129A excludes from Tribunal jurisdiction any appeal in respect of an order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) if such order relates to goods imported or exported as baggage; Section 2(25) defines 'imported goods'; baggage is treated as 'goods' under Section 2(22). Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal's consistent view (as reflected in multiple earlier decisions and affirmed in High Court pronouncements) is that matters concerning baggage fall within the proviso and are not entertainable by the Tribunal; contrary Tribunal decisions where jurisdiction was exercised have been set aside by higher courts in relevant instances. Interpretation and reasoning: A holistic reading of the Customs Act and Baggage Rules leads to the conclusion that goods brought by a passenger from abroad are 'imported goods' until cleared for home consumption; therefore, where confiscation/penal action arises from such goods, the proviso to Section 129A applies. The Tribunal cannot hear appeals where the underlying order relates to goods imported or exported as baggage. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The proviso to Section 129A removes Tribunal jurisdiction for orders relating to baggage; this is dispositive of the jurisdictional question. Obiter - observations about litigants' possible bona fide belief as to forum choice. Conclusion: The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal where the confiscated goods were imported as baggage; the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Issue 2 - Whether gold seized on person constitutes 'baggage' Legal framework: Baggage Rules, 2016 do not define 'baggage'; Rule 2(2) mandates reliance on Customs Act definitions. Section 2(3) (or corresponding provision) and Sections 77-79, and Sections 111(l) & 111(m) of the Customs Act deal with declaration and penal liability for baggage; goods remain 'imported goods' until cleared for home consumption. Precedent Treatment: Tribunal and High Court decisions have held that goods carried by a passenger (including smuggled or dutiable items) remain baggage for jurisdictional purposes; decisions where Tribunal entertained baggage matters have been distinguished or set aside where higher courts found lack of jurisdiction. Interpretation and reasoning: The absence of a separate statutory definition in the Baggage Rules requires adoption of the Customs Act definition; consequently, goods carried by a passenger (accompanied or unaccompanied, including goods on the person) are baggage. Even if certain goods are excluded from duty relaxation or fall under annexures excluding them from benefits of the Baggage Rules, that exclusion affects entitlement to relaxation/duty relief but does not change the intrinsic character of such items from being 'baggage.' The classification as 'smuggled' or 'unaccounted' does not transform the goods out of the category of baggage prior to clearance; penal proceedings under Sections 111(l)/(m) may follow, but the goods still fall within the proviso to Section 129A. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Gold articles found concealed on a passenger arriving from abroad constitute baggage within the meaning of the Act and Rules for jurisdictional purposes. Obiter - detailed distinctions of facts in other Tribunal decisions that treated similar goods otherwise. Conclusion: Gold seized from the passenger's person on arrival is 'baggage'; consequently, orders relating to such goods are excluded from Tribunal jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 129A. Issue 3 - Effect of inapplicability of Baggage Rules benefits on character of goods Legal framework: Baggage Rules permit certain duty-free allowances for bona fide baggage but also specify exclusions; Rule 2(2) directs use of Customs Act definitions where the Rules are silent. Precedent Treatment: Authorities view the availability or denial of baggage-rule relief as distinct from the question whether goods are 'baggage'; courts have held that exclusion from benefits does not alter the legal character of goods as baggage. Interpretation and reasoning: Even if goods are not eligible for duty-free concessions (because they fall under excluded annexures or exceed permissible limits), they remain baggage brought by the passenger and thus are subject to customs duty and potential penal consequences; the applicability of concessions is separable from the baggage character relevant to jurisdiction under Section 129A proviso. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Ineligibility for Baggage Rules relief does not convert baggage into non-baggage for jurisdictional purposes. Obiter - discussion of policy reasons for treating baggage uniformly for jurisdictional exclusion. Conclusion: Non-applicability of Baggage Rules relief does not alter that the seized goods are baggage; Tribunal jurisdiction is barred notwithstanding inapplicability of concessions. Issue 4 - Role of prior decisions relied upon by parties (followed/distinguished) Legal framework: Binding and persuasive effect of precedents and higher court rulings on jurisdictional questions. Precedent Treatment: Decisions where the Tribunal entertained baggage-related appeals have, in some instances, been revisited or set aside by higher courts which held that the proviso bars Tribunal jurisdiction. Decisions cited by appellant were distinguished on facts or found to have been influenced by procedural circumstances (e.g., absence of Revenue objection before the High Court) and thus do not establish a contrary rule. Interpretation and reasoning: Where earlier Tribunal decisions allowed appeals on baggage issues without the Revenue raising jurisdictional objections, subsequent higher court review clarified that the proviso prohibits such jurisdiction. Instances where Tribunals did not analyze the nature of items (e.g., pure gold) in detail are distinguishable and do not undermine the present holding. Reliance on decisions that ultimately were set aside or are factually distinguishable is not sufficient to establish Tribunal jurisdiction. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Precedents confirming that baggage matters fall outside Tribunal jurisdiction are followed; decisions where Tribunal entertained such appeals are distinguished and not followed when higher court authority or differing facts exist. Obiter - critique of selective reliance on tribunal rulings lacking higher court approval. Conclusion: Prior authorities that sustained exclusion of Tribunal jurisdiction in baggage matters are followed; decisions favoring Tribunal jurisdiction are either distinguishable or have been set aside by higher courts and therefore do not assist in maintaining the appeal. Final Disposition (jurisdictional conclusion) Because the confiscated gold articles were imported by a passenger in the nature of baggage and the proviso to Section 129A precludes Tribunal jurisdiction over orders relating to goods imported as baggage, the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal; the appellant may, if so advised, pursue the route of revision before the designated Revisionary Authority.