Foreign currency seizure appeals remain within Tribunal jurisdiction, while procedural fairness permits restoration applications to cure ex parte dismissals.

A restoration application for recall of an ex parte dismissal may be treated as a rectification application where the appellant's absence is adequately explained, the relevant procedural direction was not communicated, and the earlier Bench had jurisdiction to entertain either form of application. The note further states that the baggage-related exclusion from the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction is confined to baggage-rule violations and related declarations; it does not cover seizure or confiscation of foreign currency merely because currency falls within the definition of goods. Accordingly, the restored foreign-currency dispute is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction for adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the restoration application could be entertained and treated as satisfying the requirement of a rectification application for recall of the ex parte dismissal; (ii) Whether an appeal concerning seizure of foreign currency lies before the Tribunal rather than the Revisional Authority of the Government of India.

Issue (i): Whether the restoration application could be entertained and treated as satisfying the requirement of a rectification application for recall of the ex parte dismissal.

Analysis: The absence on the first hearing date was adequately explained by ill health. Although an internal direction indicated that a rectification application should be filed where an appeal had been dismissed ex parte on merits, the restoration application had already been filed without the appellant being informed of that direction and remained pending for nearly two years. The Bench which made the earlier order had jurisdiction to entertain either form of application.

Conclusion: The restoration application was treated as fulfilling the requirements of a rectification application, and the ex parte dismissal was recalled, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an appeal concerning seizure of foreign currency lies before the Tribunal rather than the Revisional Authority of the Government of India.

Analysis: The baggage-related exclusion from the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction does not extend to seizure of foreign currency merely because currency is included within the definition of goods. The exclusion is confined to matters concerning baggage-rule violations and related declarations; foreign currency is distinct from baggage.

Conclusion: The appeal concerning seized foreign currency lies before the Tribunal and need not be filed before the Revisional Authority of the Government of India, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction over the restored dispute is affirmed and the appeal is to be listed for adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The baggage exception to the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction does not exclude an appeal concerning confiscation or seizure of foreign currency, and a restoration application may be treated as a rectification application where procedural fairness and the facts warrant such treatment.

---