Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesCESTAT Lacks Jurisdiction To Decide Appeal Against Order Relating To Any Goods...

CESTAT Lacks Jurisdiction To Decide Appeal Against Order Relating To Any Goods Imported Or Exported As Baggage

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that CESTAT lacks jurisdiction to decide appeal against order relating to any goods imported or exported as baggage.

The bench of Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) has observed that as per Section 129A(1) proviso of Customs Act, 1962 as mentioned above Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide this appeal, therefore appeal is liable to be returned to appellant for filing before the appropriate authority.

The foreign currency i.e. UAE Dirhams 50,000 equivalent to INR 10,90,000/- was seized from the appellant possession on the alleged ground that he failed to give plausible reply for carrying the same and failed to declare the same to the Customs and violated the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1992.

As per Section 129A(1) proviso of Customs Act, 1962 no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) if such order relates to, any goods imported or exported as baggage; any goods loaded in a conveyance for importation into India, but which are not unloaded at their place of destination in India, or so much of the quantity of such goods as has not been unloaded at any such destination if goods unloaded at such destination are short of the quantity required to be unloaded at that destination; and payment of drawback as provided in Chapter X.

The tribunal held that appeal is liable to be returned to appellant for filing before the appropriate authority.

Read More: Madras High Court Directs To Challenge DRI Action Before CESTAT Citing Cannon Judgement

Case Details

Case Title:  Sri Abdul Raheem Kaulani Versus Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad – Customs

Case No.:  Customs Appeal No. 30487 of 2024

Date: 02.12.2024

Counsel For Appellant: Ibad Ur Rehman Khan

Counsel For Respondent: A Rangadham

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

DGFT To Launch Central Processing Dept. for Faceless, Jurisdiction-Free Trade Applications By 2 October 2026

The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) is establishing a Central Processing Department (CPD)...

Undisclosed Receipts in ST-3 Return Justify Extended Service Tax Demand: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld a service tax...

Importer’s Consent to Enhanced Customs Value Doesn’t Bar Appeal; Valuation Must Follow Statutory Procedure: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, has held that...

Adjudicating Authority Ignored Remand Directions, Reissued ‘Copy-Paste’ Order: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand 

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

More like this

DGFT To Launch Central Processing Dept. for Faceless, Jurisdiction-Free Trade Applications By 2 October 2026

The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) is establishing a Central Processing Department (CPD)...

Undisclosed Receipts in ST-3 Return Justify Extended Service Tax Demand: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld a service tax...

Importer’s Consent to Enhanced Customs Value Doesn’t Bar Appeal; Valuation Must Follow Statutory Procedure: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, has held that...