Anees Fathima Bande Nawaz Vs. Commissioner of Customs,Air-CC Airport, Chennai I- Customs

Print PDF

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE 

TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI

Legal Robe C/41462/2017

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus I No. 53/2017 dated 21.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I & II), Chennai)

Anees Fathima Bande Nawaz

Vs.

Commissioner of Customs,Air-CC Airport, Chennai I

Appearance:-

Shri Arun Kungumaraj, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon’ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing/Decision:08.06.2018

Final Order No. 41761 / 2018

Brief facts of the case are that on 16.06.2016, Shrimati Anees Fathima Bande Nawas, arriving from Dubai, by Air India Flight, was intercepted by a lady customs officer at the Anna International Terminal of Chennai Airport on suspicion that she was carrying gold in her baggage or in person. After examination, it was found that she was wearing gold chain on her body. The same was seized as the appellant had not declared the gold which she carried on her body and Show Cause Notice was issued, proposing to seize the gold and for demanding duty. After due process of law, the original authority ordered absolute confiscation of the two gold chains, weighing 259 gms and valued at Rs. 7,92,281/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 114AA of the Act ibid. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order except for setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114AA. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal.

2. The learned Counsel, Shri Arun Kungumaraj, reiterated the grounds of appeal.
3. The learned AR, Shri R. Subramaniyan, argued that the present appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal. That, as per Section 129(A),the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of an order which relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage. He submitted that as per the New Baggage Rules, 2016, even if the jewellery is worn on the person, it would not come within the definition of ‘personal effects’ and, therefore, would fall under the category of baggage. That the appellant has to file a revision before the concerned authority and the appeal cannot be entertained by the Tribunal.
4. Heard both sides.

5. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned AR adverting to the New Baggage Rules, which has come into existence vide notification No. 30/2016 Cus.- NT dated 01.03.2016. As per Rule 2(vi), ‘personal effects’ is defined to mean things required for satisfying daily necessities, but does not include jewellery. Thus, the contention of the appellant that the gold chains were worn on her person and does not fall within the category of baggage cannot be accepted. The proviso to Section 129(A) states that an appeal shall not lie to the Tribunal in respect of any order which relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage.

6. As the gold chains fall within the category of ‘baggage’ and not ‘personal effects’, I am of the view that the present appeal is not maintainable. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. The appellant is at liberty to file appeal before the proper forum.

(Operative portion of the order was Pronounced in open court)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)