TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1066
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned order relates to goods exported or attempted to be exported as baggage. 2. Learned AR submitted that the appellant was an outbound international passenger carrying foreign currency, Saudi Arabian Riyals equivalent to Rs. 8,62,000/-, and therefore, the matter squarely falls within, the category of baggage. According to revenue, once the case pertains to baggage, the statutory bar under Section 129A proviso of the Customs Act becomes absolute. Learned AR has relied on the following decisions: i) Sri Abdul Raheem Kaulani Vs Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad [2024 (12) TMI 176 - CESTAT Hyderadab] ii) The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Air Port) Vs Ahamed Gani Natchiar [2022 (10) TMI 100 - Madras High Court] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undisputed that the appellant was intercepted by CISF personnel before he entered the Customs / immigration clearance area. The appellant's specific case is that he has not crossed the Customs barrier, had not reached baggage examination, and had not made any declaration or non-declaration before Customs Authorities. 7. This factual aspect assumes considerable importance. For goods to be treated baggage in the context of Customs proceedings, there must ordinarily exist a direct nexus with baggage clearance under Customs control. Merely because a passenger intends to undertake international travel does not automatically render every article in his possession as baggage for the purpose of jurisdictional exclusion under Section 129A proviso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Revisional Authority and also requested to return the appeal for filing in proper forum. In that facts and circumstances that appeal had been dispose off accordingly without going on the merits. 9. In the case of Ahamed Gani Natchiar and others, supra, decided by Hon'ble Madras High Court, the respondent was wearing of gold chain and bangles on her person, and the issue for consideration was whether jewellery wear on body could be treated as "baggage or not". The Hon'ble High Court, while observing that the Departmental contention may be correct, set asided the order of the Tribunal and granted liberty to the respondent to file revision before Revisional Authority. However, the facts of the present case are distinguishable, therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the baggage includes unaccompanied baggage but does not include motor vehicles. Here, this baggage is completely different from the currency notes and Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide these appeals. The relevant paras of the decision as follows: "Having heard the respective contentions, the point which has fallen for consideration in this matter is whether the Learned Tribunal was competent to entertain, hear and decide the appeal under Section 198A when the currency notes were seized and on the ground that the said currency notes were in baggage. Therefore, we set out the definition of goods as contained in Section 2(22)(d) of the Act as being "currency and negotiable instruments". From a plain reading o....