Ismail Navaz Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) (CESTAT Bangalore)
CESTAT Bangalore considered an appeal against an order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) concerning gold brought into India as baggage and seized at the airport. The gold was absolutely confiscated and a penalty was imposed. The appellant’s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also rejected.
The Revenue raised a preliminary objection that CESTAT lacked jurisdiction under clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. It submitted that where the disputed goods were brought into India as baggage, a revision application against the Commissioner (Appeals) order lies before the Government of India.
CESTAT accepted the objection, observing that the dispute concerned gold brought as baggage. It held that the Tribunal was not vested with jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and that the appropriate forum was the Revisionary Authority of the Government of India.
The Tribunal found that approaching CESTAT was a bona fide error and disposed of the appeal, granting liberty to the appellant to approach the Revisionary Authority. It also observed that the appellant’s case may be sympathetically considered regarding delay in filing the revision application while pursuing the Tribunal appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE ORDER
This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 438/2021 dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.
2. At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue raised a preliminary objection submitting that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in view of the provision contained under clause (a) of the 1st proviso to Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that in the present case, the goods which were seized at the airport and subject matter of dispute was brought in India as part of baggage. It is his contention that therefore, revision application against the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) lies with the Government of India.
3. None present for the appellant.
4. Heard learned AR for the Revenue and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the issue relates to the bringing gold into Indian territory as baggage which was seized by the Customs Department at the airport. After adjudicating, the gold was confiscated absolutely and penalty imposed. Against the said order, the appellant approached the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected their appeal. Since the goods were brought as baggage, I find merit in the contention of the learned AR for the Revenue that this Tribunal is not vested with the jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal against the said order of learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). On the contrary, the appropriate jurisdiction will be in such cases vests with the Revisionary Authority of Government of India. From the records, I find that it is a bona fide error on the part of the appellant in approaching this Tribunal. Thus, the appellant is at liberty to approach the Revisionary Authority of Government of India, if so advised and in that event, their case may sympathetically be considered for the delay caused in filing the Revision Application while pursuing the appeal before this Tribunal. Appeal is disposed off.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in Open Court on conclusion of hearing.)
