The Madras High Court has held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals concerning goods imported or exported as baggage against orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and stated that the statutory remedy in such cases lies before the Central Government through a revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P. Velmurugan set aside a Single Judge’s order directing a passenger to approach CESTAT in a dispute involving the absolute confiscation of gold jewellery valued at ₹56.38 lakh.

Buy Now: All 200+ GSTAT Judgements Till November 2026 | Comprehensive E-Magazine

The Bench also quashed the Revisional Authority’s order rejecting her revision application on limitation, condoned the 37-day delay, and directed fresh consideration of the dispute on merits after a personal hearing.

The proceedings arose from the interception of the appellant at Trichy Airport on January 6, 2020. Customs authorities seized gold jewellery valued at ₹56,38,249 for non-declaration.

Following investigation and the issuance of a show-cause notice, the original adjudicating authority passed an order on September 3, 2020, directing absolute confiscation of the jewellery. It also imposed a penalty of ₹25 lakh and appropriated cash security of ₹1 lakh.

The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the passenger’s statutory appeal on March 28, 2023.

The passenger subsequently approached the Central Government’s Revisional Authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act. However, her revision application was filed with a delay of 37 days, which she attributed to health issues.

On December 13, 2024, the Revisional Authority rejected the application solely on limitation without examining the merits of the confiscation and penalty.

The passenger challenged that rejection through a writ petition. On February 27, 2025, a Single Judge disposed of the petition on the ground that an alternative appellate remedy was available before CESTAT under Section 129A. This direction became the subject of the intra-court appeal.

The appellant argued that the direction to approach CESTAT was contrary to the express statutory exclusion applicable to baggage matters.

Her counsel submitted that the proviso to Section 129A(1) bars CESTAT from hearing appeals against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. Accordingly, revision before the Central Government under Section 129DD was the applicable statutory remedy.

On limitation, the appellant contended that the 37-day delay fell within the additional three-month period during which the Revisional Authority could condone delay upon sufficient cause being shown.

She also challenged the absolute confiscation, arguing that gold was a restricted rather than prohibited item and that redemption under Section 125 should have been considered. The appellant maintained that refusing to examine these issues because of a marginal procedural delay defeated substantial justice.

The Customs authorities submitted that the seizure arose from deliberate non-declaration of the jewellery and that the confiscation and penalty were imposed in accordance with the Customs Act.

They disputed the appellant’s claim to an absolute right of redemption in a case involving non-declaration.

The respondents also defended the rejection of the revision application, arguing that sufficient cause had not been established for the delay. They maintained that the appellant should pursue the statutory remedy instead of invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench found that the statutory position expressly excluded CESTAT’s jurisdiction over the baggage dispute.

Reading the proviso to Section 129A(1), the Court held that CESTAT cannot decide an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A where the order concerns goods imported or exported as baggage. For such orders, the Act provides an exclusive revisional remedy before the Central Government under Section 129DD.

Since the dispute concerned jewellery seized from the appellant as passenger baggage, the Tribunal lacked inherent jurisdiction.

The Bench observed, “Relegating the appellant to a forum that lacks statutory jurisdiction is legally unsustainable.”

The Court held that this error alone warranted interference with the Single Judge’s order.

The Bench then examined the Revisional Authority’s refusal to entertain the application.

It explained that Section 129DD(2) ordinarily requires a revision application to be filed within three months from communication of the order. The proviso permits presentation within a further three months where sufficient cause prevented filing within the initial period.

The appellant’s delay of 37 days was therefore within the statutory condonable limit.

Considering the health reasons cited and the substantial property rights involved, the Court held that the authority should have exercised its discretion liberally instead of rejecting the revision at the threshold through a hyper-technical approach.

The Bench emphasised that substantial justice deserved preference over technical considerations in the circumstances.

The High Court did not decide whether the jewellery must be released or whether redemption under Section 125 was available.

Instead, it held that the contentious questions—including whether the goods were restricted or prohibited and whether redemption was applicable—required consideration on merits by the Revisional Authority.

The judgment therefore restores the passenger’s opportunity to contest the confiscation and penalty. It does not itself set aside those substantive measures or direct the return of the jewellery.

The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s order and quashed the Revisional Authority’s rejection dated December 13, 2024.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: GST Portal Notices Going Unanswered? Officers Must Explore Other Modes of Service: Madras High Court