CESTAT lacks jurisdiction over baggage confiscation appeals, must approach Revisional Authority under Section 129A

CESTAT New Delhi held it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding confiscation of INR 4,34,000 found in passenger baggage. The appellant had forgotten his bag containing Indian currency at Bali airport, which was later delivered to him in India by airline staff in presence of customs authorities. Since the amount exceeded the permissible limit of Rs. 25,000 under FEMA, Rs. 4,09,000 was confiscated under Section 111 read with Section 113 of Customs Act for failure to declare under Section 77. The tribunal ruled that appeals concerning baggage-related confiscations must be filed before the Revisional Authority under Section 129A, not before CESTAT. Appeal disposed of for lack of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues involved: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain appeal against the order of confiscation of Indian Currency recovered from appellant's bag.

Summary:
The appellant challenged the order of absolute confiscation of Indian currency exceeding the permissible limit under FEMA. The appellant argued that the subject matter of the appeal is Indian Currency, not 'Baggage', citing relevant legal precedents. On the other hand, the Department emphasized the proviso in Section 129A of the Customs Act, stating that currency found in the appellant's bag falls under the definition of 'Goods' and 'Baggage', thus making the appeal not maintainable before the Tribunal.

Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal examined the factual background of the case, where the appellant left his bag containing Indian Currency at Bali Airport, which was later confiscated upon importation into India. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of 'Baggage' and 'Goods' under the Customs Act and concluded that even though currency is distinct from baggage, if carried in a bag by a traveler, it qualifies as goods imported/exported as 'Baggage'.

The Tribunal held that the order of confiscation pertained to currency found in the appellant's baggage, beyond the permissible limit, and imposed penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act. As per the proviso in Section 129A, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order related to goods imported/exported as Baggage. Consequently, the appeal was directed to be returned to the appellant for seeking appropriate statutory remedy within the prescribed period of limitation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal determined that the appeal was against an order concerning currency improperly exported/imported as Baggage, thereby lacking jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal. The appellant was advised to pursue revision before the appropriate authority within the specified timeframe, with the exclusion of the impugned proceedings period from the limitation calculation.

---