Baggage confiscation and currency treatment under Customs law barred CESTAT jurisdiction over the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Currency carried in baggage can fall within the Customs Act definition of "goods", even though baggage and currency are treated separately in the statutory scheme. Where the confiscation order arises from alleged import or export of goods as baggage, including non-declaration under Section 77, the proviso to Section 129A bars an appeal to CESTAT against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. A precedent dealing with currency simpliciter was held inapplicable on these facts. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the challenge was not maintainable before CESTAT.

---

---

Issues: Whether CESTAT had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order confiscating Indian currency found in the appellant's baggage and treating it as goods imported or exported as baggage under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes "baggage" from "currency", but Section 2(22) of the Customs Act, 1962 includes currency within "goods". The confiscation order was passed in relation to currency carried in baggage, and the case arose from alleged import and export of goods as baggage along with non-declaration under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. On that footing, the proviso to Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 bars an appeal to the Tribunal in respect of orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. The earlier relied-upon authority dealing with currency simpliciter was held inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: CESTAT had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the challenge was not maintainable before the Tribunal.

---