2025 (7) TMI 1552 - AT - Customs

Transit passenger's gold exempt from confiscation under Baggage Rules; prior confiscation order set aside

The CESTAT held that since the appellant was a transit passenger who did not cross immigration or pass through the green channel, the Baggage Rules did ... Smuggling of Gold recovered from weighing 1215 gms - applicability of Baggage Rules - Absolute Confiscation - Suo moto Corrigendum Order - Mistake apparent on the face of record - HELD THAT:- It is a fact on record that the appellant has not crossed the green channel and even has not gone for immigration and the appellant was a transit passenger, who was coming from Bangkok and going to Dubai via New Delhi. As the appellant has not crossed the immigration, therefore, the Baggage Rules are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the objection raised by the ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue is turned down. On merit, as the Baggage Rules are not applicable to the facts of the case and the appellant has not crossed the immigration and not passed the green channel, in that circumstances, the gold in question is not liable for confiscation. Therefore, the confiscation of gold in this case is set aside. Consequently, no redemption fine and penalty is imposed on the appellant. Appeal disposed off. ISSUES: Whether the Customs Act, 1962 and Baggage Rules apply to a transit passenger who has not crossed immigration or passed through the green channel at the airport.Whether gold recovered from a transit passenger who has not cleared customs or immigration is liable for absolute confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.Whether penalty and redemption fine can be imposed on a transit passenger in respect of gold recovered under the above circumstances.Whether the appellate tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in a case involving baggage of a transit passenger. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Tribunal held that since the appellant had not crossed the green channel and had not gone through immigration, the Baggage Rules are not applicable, and accordingly, the Customs Act, 1962 provisions do not apply to the facts of the case.The confiscation of gold weighing 1215 grams recovered from the appellant was set aside on the ground that the gold was not liable for confiscation as the appellant was a transit passenger who had not cleared customs or immigration.Consequently, no redemption fine or penalty was imposed on the appellant.The Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection regarding lack of jurisdiction, clarifying that the objection raised by the Authorized Representative was turned down because the appellant had not crossed immigration and the Baggage Rules were not applicable. RATIONALE: The legal framework applied includes the Customs Act, 1962 and the Baggage Rules governing import and export of goods through customs at airports.The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the passenger crossing immigration and passing through the green channel as a prerequisite for applicability of the Baggage Rules and Customs Act provisions related to baggage.The decision clarified that a transit passenger who has not cleared immigration remains outside the scope of the Customs Act and Baggage Rules for confiscation purposes.The Tribunal exercised suo motu rectification under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 to correct a mistake apparent on the face of the record in its final order, thereby reinforcing the principle that the appellant's status as a transit passenger exempted him from confiscation and penalty.