Case Law Details
Nizar Moulavi Abdul Khader Vs Commissioner of Customs Mangalore (CESTAT Bangalore)
Order-in-Original records a finding that gold was found in the foot band worn for medical purpose on both the feet of the appellant, well hidden/covered with black socks, shoes put over them. This is claimed as having been found on the ‘person of the appellant‘ but not found in the baggage, the appellant has filed appeal under Section 129A
Baggage Rules, 2016 defines ‘personal effects‘ to mean things required for satisfying daily necessities but does not include jewellery. So, when the jewellery on a person is itself excluded, the gold that was not worn but hidden, gets automatically excluded. Further, Section 129A(1)(a) makes it clear that no appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in respect of any order which relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage. The gold which is imported here having been excluded by the definition of ‘personal effects’ under Baggage Rules ibid, automatically falls within the ambit of baggage and hence, I agree that no appeal could be entertained by this forum. The appellant can only invoke Section 129DD if he is so advised and accordingly, this appeal is held not maintainable.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
