Strict construction of baggage jurisdiction bar under Customs law leaves appeal maintainable where foreign currency was seized before baggage clearance.

The proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act bars appeals only where the dispute is directly and substantially about import or export of goods as baggage, and such exclusion must be construed strictly. On the stated facts, the appellant was intercepted before entering the Customs clearance area and before any baggage examination or declaration could begin, while the dispute arose from seizure and confiscation of foreign currency. The Tribunal distinguished the revenue's authorities on facts and treated the currency as not having assumed the legal character of baggage for appellate-jurisdiction purposes. The proviso was therefore held not to bar the appeal, and the Tribunal was held competent to hear the matter on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was barred by the proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the goods were exported or attempted to be exported as baggage.

Analysis: The bar under the proviso applies only where the dispute is directly and substantially relatable to import or export of goods as baggage. On the facts, the appellant was intercepted before entering the Customs clearance area, before baggage examination or declaration could commence, and the matter arose from seizure and confiscation of foreign currency. The expression excluding jurisdiction must be construed strictly, and the facts did not conclusively establish that the goods had assumed the legal character of baggage for the purpose of the appellate bar. The authorities relied on by the revenue were distinguished on facts, and the currency was treated as distinct from baggage for jurisdictional purposes.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 129A(1) was held not to bar the appeal, and the Tribunal was found to have jurisdiction to hear the matter on merits.

---