PRAKASH CHANDRA SHANTILAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS., AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this Stay Petition was called on 5 -7 -2012, an observation was made that the appeal itself may not be maintainable before the Tribunal in view of the fact that the issue is related to non -declaration of gold in the baggage of the passenger and according to the proviso to Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962, the appeal cannot be filed before this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel submitted that according to him, the appeal shall lie to the Tribunal only and sought time to present detailed argument. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned and was taken up today.

(2.) LD . Advocate on behalf of the appellant submitted that in the case of M. Ambalal and Co. - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.), the Honble Supreme Court had distinguished between the imported goods and smuggled goods. It is his submission that following the decision of Honble Supreme Court, the goods in this case, come under the category of smuggled goods and not imported goods. According to Section 129A, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction only when the goods are imported as passenger baggage. The second submission he would like to make is that according to Foreign Trade Policy, only bona fide household goods and personal effects may be imported as a part of passenger baggage and further declaration is also required to be filed. Since no declaration was filed in this case, the goods cannot be considered to have been imported goods at all and they have to be considered as smuggled goods. Further, the ld. Advocate also relied upon the definition of the goods under Section 2(22) of Customs Act, 1962, according to which the goods includes baggage also. Therefore, the expression imported goods would include the imported baggage also and therefore once the goods are not imported goods but smuggled goods, in the case of smuggled goods the Tribunal will have jurisdiction. Further, he also relied upon the decision of the Sapna Sanjeev Kohli - 2008 (230) E.L.T. 305 (Tri. -Mum.), where the Tribunal has considered the case of confiscation of gold jewellery and foreign currency from the passenger. The matter had travelled upto Honble Supreme Court and nowhere the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was questioned.

(3.) LD . AR would submit that in this case, the passenger had come from abroad and within the Customs area i.e. airport, the seizure was effected on the ground that the appellant failed to declare the goods and therefore no appeal lies against the Order -in -Appeal impugned in this case.