TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case are that on 12.6.2023, Air Intelligence Unit of Customs intercepted the appellant who arrived at Chennai Airport from Dubai by Air India Flight No. AI 906 dated 12.6.2023 and had opted for green channel at the exit of the arrival hall of the International Terminal of Chennai Anna International Airport. On examination of the baggage it was not found to contain any incriminating goods or documents except her personal effects but on search of the 'person', one chain, two anklets and two bangles were found concealed in her undergarments and the same were recovered. Suspecting the recovered yellow metals to be gold, gold appraiser was called and based on his examination, it was found that the yellow metals were 24 karat gold totally weighing 598 grams and valued at Rs. 1,37,108/-. 1.2 Defect Appeal No. 40295/2025, Abdul Salam Brief facts of the case are that on 12.2.2024, the appellant who arrived by Flight No. 6E-179 at Domestic Terminal of Chennai Airport from Mumbai was apprehended by the officers of AIU. On examination of the person/ baggage, the officers found three metal coins of gold of 40 gms (Rs. 2,20,956) and 30 grams (Rs. 1,65,717) and iphone 15 pro max an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1962 relating to any goods imported or exported as "Baggage". Hence the appeals may not be entertained. They have also filed a written submission in this regard. 3. We find that revenue has raised the issue of jurisdiction, which can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Jurisdiction refers to the authority or power of a court or tribunal to hear and decide a particular case or type of dispute. It cannot be conferred by consent of parties to the dispute and hence a challenge to jurisdiction of an Authority, needs to be examined at the threshold because any order / judgment passed by an Authority without jurisdiction would be 'coram non judice' or 'before a court lacking jurisdiction' and would be considered void or a nullity which is non est and of no legal effect. Accordingly, we proceed to examine the issue. We notice that while in Defect Appeal No. 42151/2024, in the case of Noorul Ayin the passenger along with his baggage were examined at the International Airport on arrival from Dubai. In the other three cases the passengers were allegedly intercepted at the Domestic Airport at Chennai on arrival from Mumbai when the aircraft was on a domestic run. 4. We h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2023 (7) TMI 1191 CESTAT HYDERABAD She prayed that the appeal may be rejected on the grounds of jurisdiction. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant Noorul Ayin stated that the gold seized from the appellant's possession was not part of 'baggage' but from 'her person'. The judgment of the jurisdictional high court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs Ahmed Ghani Nachiar reported in 2024 (15) Centax 177 (Mad.) should not be applied for the reason that the Tribunal in the case of Vicky Asrani in Final Order No. 87527 of 2024 of the CESTAT, West Zonal Bench dated 19.12.2024 has distinguished the aforesaid judgment and proceeds to hold that this Tribunal would still have the jurisdiction to decide on the confiscability or otherwise of gold jewellery brought by a person. The Hon'ble High Court Madras in recent judgment in the case of Ms. Sabeena Mohammed Maideen vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs [W.P No.5247 of 2024 dated 31.01.2025], held that jewellery worn by the passenger will not fall within provisions of baggage rules, 2016. Though the aforesaid order of the learned single judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has been stayed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age' in view of the restriction/ limitation imposed under the proviso to Section 129A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that, "It is the failure of the passenger to comply with those prescriptions in relation to 'gold jewellery' that led to exclusion from 'baggage' and proceedings under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, for determination of rate of duty and for valuation, which are excluded from the purview of the revisionary jurisdiction of Government of India and, thereby, lies within the appellate structure that embraces the Tribunal." It further held that, "On perusal of the Rules pertaining to importation of jewellery, as baggage by an arriving passenger, it is seen that the quantity in the present dispute is far in excess of that allowed free of duty on import into India. Therefore, the passenger has failed to comply with declaration requirements and confiscation under section 111(1) of Customs Act, 1962 is not misplaced." 10. Revenue took the issue of jurisdiction in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The High Court in its judgment in THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR CUSTOMS (AIR PORT) VS AHAMED GANI NATCHIAR [2022 (10) TMI 100 - MADRAS HIGH CO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s real the consequence and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it.... The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi Vs. Commr. Municipal Corporation Kalyan, AIR 2005 SC 34." It thus seems that the appellants may be right in its submission that the issue relates to Baggage falls within the exclusion carved out in terms of the proviso to Section 129A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus the order of the Tribunal is set aside as bad in law. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to avail statutory remedy by way of a revision before the appropriate authority if so advised within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such revision is filed by the respondents within the time line set out above the Revisional Authority shall examine the matter and pass order on merits. 13. As we have decided that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction to entertai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jewellery worn on the person would constitute "Baggage", if the answer to the above question is in the affirmative it then seems doubtful if the Tribunal was right in assuming jurisdiction. . . ***** ***** ****** Hence there is no doubt, at least to our mind, that what was answered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High court and extracted at para 13 above related to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide any appeal in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 A of the Customs Act, 1962 relating to any goods imported or exported as "Baggage" and that "Baggage" under the 2016 Rules includes jewellery worn on the person. 12. In DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Vs PUSPHA L. TOLANI [2024 (390) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.)], decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and cited by the appellant in their favour, the passenger on arrival in India opted to walk through the 'Green Channel'. She was intercepted and on an examination of her baggage, 28 packages containing 44 items of jewellery worth Rs. 1.27 crores were recovered from two hand bags. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the respondent did not violate the provisions of Section 77 of the Act since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of order does not efface the ratio of the said order. He stated that as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Vs. Church of South India, Madras [(1992) 3 SCC 1] a distinction was made between stay of operation of the order challenged and quashing of an order. It holds that quashing of an order results in restoration of the position as on dated of passing of order which has been quashed. Stay would only mean that the order would not be operative from the date of passing of stay order and does not mean that such order has been wiped out from existence. 14. We have examined the matter. We find that the stay granted by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 411 of 2025, dated 14.02.2025 [The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs Ms. Sabeena Mohammed Maideen], states that the Court is convinced that there is a prima facie case in favour of the appellant (revenue). The issue concerns the constitutional vires of the provisions of the Baggage Rules, 2016 framed under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Hon'ble Court was inclined to grant stay of operation of the order passed in W.P. No. 5247 of 2024. The issue of the effect of a 'stay' was examined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xamining a number of judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors. Vs Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, (supra) and the Delhi High Court's judgment in Qamar Jahan Vs Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors. [2025:DHC:174-DB], has stated as under; 16. A conspectus of the above decisions and provisions would lead to the conclusion that jewellery that is bona fide in personal use by the tourist would not be excluded from the ambit of personal effects as defined under the Baggage Rules. (emphasis added) From the judgment it appears there is by and large a convergence of views among the Constitutional Courts on the applicability of the Baggage Rules 2016, to gold jewellery found on an individual or caried in his/ her baggage while arriving in India from abroad. 16. We also feel that established procedures and practices that have been in place since the Finance Act of 1984, should not be changed suddenly or else it would cause immense difficulty to appellants especially in the case of passengers. This is more so when, in a series of judgments of this Tribunal, some of which were cited by Revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overed. We find that the Customs Act, 1962 is the main legislation granting powers to the Government to levy and collect duties of customs on goods imported into and exported from India. The Baggage Rules, 2016, has been framed under the Customs Act 1962. They are a set of guiding principles, which come into play, for clearing 'baggage' both accompanied and un-accompanied - of individuals who travel to India from abroad - between their importation and the time when it exits the international airport upon clearance and loses its presumtive identity as 'baggage'. Hence once the luggage / bag which accompanies an individual arriving from a domestic airport in India, during the aircrafts domestic run, is intercepted by the officers at the Chennai domestic airport, there cannot be a presumption that it is covered under the Customs Act, 1962 and to which the Baggage Rules, 2016 can automatically apply. Imported consumer goods are freely available within the country and cannot be presumed to be goods improperly imported or to be smuggled goods if found on the person or in the luggage of individuals arriving at domestic airports, while the flight is on a domestic run. As stated by the Apex....