https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414503 Gold concealed on a person but not worn as jewellery was treated as outside the scope of "personal effects" under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and therefore as baggage. On that footing, an appeal to the Tribunal was barred because section 129A(1)(a) excludes orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. The proper remedy was the statutory appeal under section 129DD, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. en-us Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Nov 2021 07:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414503 Gold concealed on a person but not worn as jewellery was treated as outside the scope of "personal effects" under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and therefore as baggage. On that footing, an appeal to the Tribunal was barred because section 129A(1)(a) excludes orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. The proper remedy was the statutory appeal under section 129DD, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414503