2025 (6) TMI 1190 - AT - Customs

Supreme Court Clarifies CESTAT's Jurisdictional Limits on Baggage Goods Appeals Under Sections 79 and 80 of Customs Act

The SC held that CESTAT lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals related to baggage goods under sections 79 and 80 of the Customs Act. The statutory bar in ... Jurisdiction of Tribunal to deal with appeal that arose from order passed u/s 79 & 80 of the Customs Act - Baggage Rules - HELD THAT:- Section 129A clause-I proviso states that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and Appellate Tribunals shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to writ clause-B (i.e. order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) u/s. 128 A), if such order relates to Sub-clause-A - Any goods imported /exported as baggage. Appellate Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain such appeal and therefore accepting request of ld. Counsel for the Appellant, liberty is granted to withdraw this appeal from this forum so as to enable him to file appeal before the Appropriate Revisional Authority, to be done within a month of passing of this order. This limitation matter is supposed to be dealt by the Revisional Authority, before whom the computation of period of limitation is to be made and Section 14 being statutory provision, spirit of which, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Steel V/s. Union of India, has clearly directed Tribunals to apply while computing the period of limitation, Appellant can avail of the said opportunity before the Revisional Authority. The appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to re-file the same before the appropriate Authority. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether the Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has jurisdiction to entertain appeals arising from orders passed under sections 79 and 80 of the Customs Act relating to Baggage Rules.- Whether appeals against confiscation and re-export orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 80 of the Customs Act concerning baggage goods are maintainable before the Tribunal or are barred by statutory provisions.- Interpretation of section 129A of the Customs Act regarding the bar on appeals to the Appellate Tribunal in baggage-related matters.- The applicability and scope of the Baggage Rules, especially regarding goods 'carried in person' and whether such goods fall within the purview of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.- The relevance and binding nature of precedents including decisions of the Tribunal and judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, particularly the Sabina Mohammad case and subsequent interim orders.- The issue of limitation and whether the appellant can seek exemption from the period of limitation under section 14 of the Limitation Act given the appeal was initially filed before an incorrect forum.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISJurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal over baggage-related appeals:Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 129A of the Customs Act explicitly restricts the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in appeals concerning baggage goods. The proviso to clause (i) of section 129A states that no appeal shall lie to the Tribunal against orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128A if such orders relate to goods imported or exported as baggage. The Baggage Rules, framed under sections 79 and 80 of the Customs Act, regulate the treatment of such goods.Precedents cited by the Respondent include three decisions of this Tribunal (Customs Appeal Nos. C/86466/2023, C/30100/2023, and C/30006/2023) supporting the view that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in baggage matters.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal undertook a literal reading of section 129A and found a clear statutory bar on its jurisdiction in baggage-related appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that this bar is absolute and cannot be overridden by conflicting interpretations or by reliance on other judgments that address different aspects such as assessment or reassessment under the Baggage Rules.It was further noted that the Baggage Rules include the phrase 'carrying on the person,' which covers goods such as jewellery owned by a person, and such goods fall squarely within the scope of the Baggage Rules and the statutory bar on appeals to the Tribunal.Key evidence and findings: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing confiscation and re-export under section 80 of the Customs Act was passed in relation to goods treated as baggage. The Respondent's reliance on Tribunal precedents and the Baggage Rules supported the conclusion that the Tribunal is not empowered to entertain such appeals.Application of law to facts: Given the statutory bar in section 129A and the nature of the goods involved, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The appellant's contention based on the Madras High Court judgment in Sabina Mohammad and the Tribunal's own decision dated 19.12.2024 was held not applicable as those decisions dealt with different facets (assessment/reassessment) and did not override the clear statutory bar.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that goods 'carried in person' are excluded from the Baggage Rules and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in assessment matters under these rules. The Respondent countered by citing the statutory provision and binding Tribunal precedents. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that an interim stay granted by the Madras High Court in a related case (Tanushika v. Principal Commissioner of Customs) undermined reliance on the Sabina Mohammad judgment at this stage.Conclusion: The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeals arising from baggage-related orders under sections 79 and 80 of the Customs Act and that such appeals must be filed before the Revisional Authority of the Government of India as prescribed by law.Limitation and exemption under Section 14 of the Limitation Act:Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 14 of the Limitation Act allows for the exclusion of time during which a party was prosecuting an appeal before a wrong forum, provided the appeal is re-filed before the appropriate forum within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court's direction in M.P. Steel v. Union of India (2015) mandates tribunals to apply this principle strictly in computing limitation periods.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the appellant had filed the appeal before an incorrect forum (the Tribunal instead of the Revisional Authority). While the Tribunal could not itself grant exemption from limitation, it recognized that the Revisional Authority is the appropriate forum to consider such a claim under section 14.Key evidence and findings: The appellant's request for exemption from limitation was acknowledged but deferred for determination by the Revisional Authority.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal granted liberty to the appellant to withdraw the appeal and re-file it before the Revisional Authority within one month, leaving the limitation issue to be decided at that stage.Treatment of competing arguments: No competing arguments were noted on this issue; the Tribunal took a procedural approach consistent with established legal principles.Conclusion: The appellant may seek exemption from limitation under section 14 before the Revisional Authority, which will apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The bare reading of the statute merely indicates that CESTAT lacks jurisdiction to entertain any appeal in which Baggage Rules, which emanates from section 79 of Customs Act, is dealt with.''There is inclusion of the words 'carrying on the person' in the Baggage Rules occurring at Section 3(B) can also cover Jewelleries owned on by a person and the same has to be dealt with as per provisions of Baggage Rules of 2016, which is also accordingly dealt by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order directing confiscation and re-export u/s. 80 of Customs Act.''I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that Appellate Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain such appeal and therefore accepting request of ld. Counsel for the Appellant, liberty is granted to withdraw this appeal from this forum so as to enable him to file appeal before the Appropriate Revisional Authority.''This limitation matter is supposed to be dealt by the Revisional Authority, before whom the computation of period of limitation is to be made and Section 14 being statutory provision, spirit of which, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Steel V/s. Union of India, 2015 [2015] 7 S.C.R.291, has clearly directed Tribunals to apply while computing the period of limitation, Appellant can avail of the said opportunity before the Revisional Authority.'Core principles established include the absolute bar on the Tribunal's jurisdiction in baggage-related appeals under section 129A of the Customs Act, the applicability of the Baggage Rules to goods 'carried on the person,' and the procedural requirement that such appeals be filed before the Revisional Authority. The judgment also reinforces the principle that limitation can be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act when appeals are prosecuted before a wrong forum, subject to re-filing before the correct authority.