Noorul Ayin Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court examined a writ petition challenging an order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) and seeking a direction to release certain seized gold and silver goods on payment of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had earlier filed an appeal before CESTAT against the same order. CESTAT, through its order dated 08.04.2025, dealt with multiple connected cases concerning travelers intercepted at the Chennai domestic airport with goods such as gold and silver coins. It held that luggage accompanying individuals arriving on a domestic flight cannot automatically be presumed to constitute “baggage” within the meaning of the Customs Act and Baggage Rules, 2016, as those rules apply only to persons arriving from abroad. It further held that imported consumer goods found in domestic travel cannot be presumed to be smuggled, and that the burden of proof lies on the department. In the petitioner’s case, however, the Tribunal returned the appeal for being filed before the wrong appellate forum, noting that the appeal ought to have been presented through the appropriate revision mechanism. Following this, the petitioner was required to file a revision before the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Act within the statutory period: 30 days, plus a maximum condonable delay of 30 additional days. The petitioner missed this statutory timeline.
