https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366058 The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it lacked jurisdiction over goods imported as baggage, including jewelry not classified as 'personal effects' under the New Baggage Rules. The appellant's failure to declare gold worn on her body led to confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside one penalty, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, advising the appellant to seek recourse through the appropriate forum for goods classified as baggage. en-us Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2019 13:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366058 The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it lacked jurisdiction over goods imported as baggage, including jewelry not classified as 'personal effects' under the New Baggage Rules. The appellant's failure to declare gold worn on her body led to confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside one penalty, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, advising the appellant to seek recourse through the appropriate forum for goods classified as baggage. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366058