https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796734 Tribunal jurisdiction under the baggage exclusion depends on whether the impugned order actually concerns goods imported or exported as baggage. A gold ornament recovered from an arriving passenger's wrist was not automatically baggage merely because the passenger arrived from abroad or was intercepted at an international airport. As its status as a personal ornament, declarability and alleged concealment remained disputed, the jurisdictional fact for excluding Tribunal review was not conclusively established. Authorities concerning goods admittedly recovered from baggage or luggage were distinguishable. The preliminary jurisdictional objection was rejected, and the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal. en-us Fri, 07 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Aug 2026 08:37:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796734 Tribunal jurisdiction under the baggage exclusion depends on whether the impugned order actually concerns goods imported or exported as baggage. A gold ornament recovered from an arriving passenger's wrist was not automatically baggage merely because the passenger arrived from abroad or was intercepted at an international airport. As its status as a personal ornament, declarability and alleged concealment remained disputed, the jurisdictional fact for excluding Tribunal review was not conclusively established. Authorities concerning goods admittedly recovered from baggage or luggage were distinguishable. The preliminary jurisdictional objection was rejected, and the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 07 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796734