The Tribunal held that the proviso excluding appellate jurisdiction for orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage must be construed strictly. Because the appellant was intercepted before entering the Customs clearance area and the dispute did not arise from baggage declaration, assessment or examination, the matter was not directly and substantially a baggage case. The real controversy concerned seizure and confiscation of foreign currency for alleged FEMA or Customs violations. Currency and baggage were treated as distinct, so seizure of currency did not by itself attract the baggage bar. The preliminary objection was rejected and the appeal was held maintainable for hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that the proviso excluding appellate jurisdiction for orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage must be construed strictly. Because the appellant was intercepted before entering the Customs clearance area and the dispute did not arise from baggage declaration, assessment or examination, the matter was not directly and substantially a baggage case. The real controversy concerned seizure and confiscation of foreign currency for alleged FEMA or Customs violations. Currency and baggage were treated as distinct, so seizure of currency did not by itself attract the baggage bar. The preliminary objection was rejected and the appeal was held maintainable for hearing on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
