The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled on the jurisdiction of CESTAT to entertain appeals pertaining to “baggage”.

The bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that ‘baggage’ under the Baggage Rules 2016, includes jewellery worn or concealed on the person of an individual arriving in India from abroad, and hence CESTAT 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.

The 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.

The appellant Noorul Ayin stated that the gold seized from the appellant’s possession was not part of ‘baggage’ but from ‘her person’. The jewellery worn by the passenger will not fall within provisions of baggage rules, 2016.

The CESTAT clarified that the Customs Act, 1962 is the main legislation granting powers to the Government to levy and collect duties of customs on goods imported into and exported from India. The Baggage Rules, 2016, has been framed under the Customs Act 1962. They are a set of guiding principles, which come into play, for clearing ‘baggage’ both accompanied and un- accompanied – of individuals who travel to India from abroad – between their importation and the time when it exits the international airport upon clearance and loses its presumtive identity as ‘baggage’.

The tribunal has observed 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. 

“Imported consumer goods are freely available within the country and cannot be presumed to be goods improperly imported or to be smuggled goods if found on the person or in the luggage of individuals arriving at domestic airports, while the flight is on a domestic run,” the tribunal said.

Case Details

Case Title: Noorul Ayin Versus Commissioner of Customs

Case No.: Defect Appeal No. 42151/2024

Date: 08.04.2025

Counsel For Appellant:  J. Sirajudeen

Counsel For Respondent: Anandalakshmi Ganeshram

Read More: Rs 37.87 Cr Tax Notice to Sirsa Barber: Loan App Linked to PAN Fraud