Ask Jurishour AI

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

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 25 AUGUST, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  August 20, 2026.GSTALLAHABAD HIGH COURT QUASHES BNS...

GSTAT Denies S. 128A Amnesty for Excess ITC Availed in December 2020 Despite Assessee’s Claim That Underlying Debit Notes Pertained to FY 2018-19

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Bengaluru Bench, has held that the...

Assessment Invalid Where AO Acted Under Directions of Superior Authority: ITAT Deletes Rs. 11.12 Crore ‘On-Money’ Addition

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed an appeal...

No Pre-Deposit Where Proceedings Began Before 01.10.2025: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to a taxpayer on GST pre-deposit...

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 25 AUGUST, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  August 20, 2026.GSTALLAHABAD HIGH COURT QUASHES BNS...

GSTAT Denies S. 128A Amnesty for Excess ITC Availed in December 2020 Despite Assessee’s Claim That Underlying Debit Notes Pertained to FY 2018-19

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Bengaluru Bench, has held that the...

Assessment Invalid Where AO Acted Under Directions of Superior Authority: ITAT Deletes Rs. 11.12 Crore ‘On-Money’ Addition

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed an appeal...