2026 (1) TMI 439 - AT - Customs

Passenger's gold chain seized as baggage: dispute over 'personal effects' and s.77 declaration; CESTAT appeal barred.

The dominant issue was whether an appeal to CESTAT lay against a Commissioner (Appeals) order concerning confiscation of a gold chain brought by a ... Jurisdiction of this Tribunal - Maintainability of appeal - preliminary objection - obligation to file a baggage declaration u/s 77 - Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal - confiscation of gold chain - ‘Personal effects’ - Whether it is treated as a bonafide personal effect or as a gold chain imported by the appellant as a passenger - HELD THAT:- What is evident from section 129A is that if an Order is passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and it relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage, no appeal would lie before this Tribunal against such an order. An alternative remedy in the form of Revision by the Central Government under section 129DD of the Act is provided in those cases where the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is restricted. At any rate, the gold chain in question was part of the baggage- whether it is treated as a bonafide personal effect or as a gold chain imported by the appellant as a passenger and whether it is held that a declaration should have been filed under section 77 or that there was no such obligation. The impugned order, without doubt, pertains to goods imported as baggage. Therefore, no appeal would lie against the impugned order before this Tribunal as per the proviso to section 129A(1) of the Act. The appropriate remedy in this case would be a Revision Application under section 129DD of the Act. Since we find that the appeal itself is not maintainable, it is not necessary for us to examine the submissions made by both sides on merits. Appeal is rejected as not maintainable. Issues: Whether an appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that relates to goods imported as baggage under the proviso to section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis: The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to a gold chain held to have been imported as baggage and confirming confiscation/penalty for failure to file a baggage declaration under section 77. Section 129A(1) grants appeal jurisdiction to the Tribunal but its first proviso expressly excludes appeals against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) where such order relates to goods imported or exported as baggage. The Baggage Rules and section 79, relied upon by the appellant, relate to treatment of personal effects within the baggage regime and do not remove the characterisation of the goods as baggage for jurisdictional purposes. The Tribunal accordingly examined the scope of the proviso to section 129A(1) and the statutory scheme and concluded that the impugned order falls within the excluded category.Conclusion: The appeal is not maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal; the appellant's remedy is by revision under section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeal rejected (in favour of Revenue).