Noorul Ayin Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that jewelry worn or concealed on person arriving in India from abroad is covered under Baggage Rules, 2016 hence there cannot be presumption that it is covered under the Customs Act, 1962.
Facts- The present appeals were listed for hearing because the Registry has raised a defect stating that the appeals pertain to goods imported as baggage and hence would be excluded from the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as per proviso section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The brief facts of the cases are narrated below.
Conclusion- Held that ‘baggage’ under the Baggage Rules 2016, includes jewelry worn or concealed on the person of an individual arriving in India from abroad, and hence this Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal pertaining to ‘any goods imported or exported as baggage’ as per the exclusions carved out by the proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962
Held that 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.
