The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has held that a dispute concerning gold brought into India by an international passenger falls within the baggage-related exclusion from its appellate jurisdiction, even when the gold is recovered from the passenger’s person or trouser pocket.

The bench of Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) has observed that the appropriate statutory remedy against the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order was revision before the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. 

BUY NOW: How Courts look at Customs Seizure at Airports & Passenger Rights : CASE COMPILATION

The appellant/assessee had arrived at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, from Kuala Lumpur carrying three gold chains of 24-carat purity. According to the proceedings recorded in the order, the gold was recovered from his person or trouser pocket, and the allegation was that he had failed to declare it to Customs.

The confiscation proceedings subsequently reached the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who partly allowed the passenger’s appeal by reducing the penalty from ₹4.60 lakh to ₹2.30 lakh. The confiscation of the gold chains remained undisturbed.

The passenger then approached CESTAT to challenge the appellate order dated December 31, 2025.

The Department raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. It argued that the gold had been brought into India by the appellant in his capacity as an arriving passenger and that the dispute therefore concerned goods imported as baggage.

The Department relied on the first proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, which excludes certain orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), including those relating to goods imported or exported as baggage, from CESTAT’s jurisdiction.

It submitted that the passenger should pursue the revision remedy before the Central Government under Section 129DD.

The appellant opposed the objection, relying on the Mumbai Bench’s decision in Vicky Ramchand Asrani v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, dated December 19, 2024. His counsel argued that gold jewellery recovered from a passenger’s person should not be treated as baggage for the purpose of the jurisdictional exclusion.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that recovery of the gold from the passenger’s pocket changed the nature of the dispute.

It observed that the interception, seizure, confiscation and subsequent appellate proceedings all arose from goods brought into India by an international passenger. Whether the gold was kept in a trouser pocket or checked-in baggage did not alter that character for determining the proper appellate forum.

The Tribunal also distinguished jurisdictional questions from issues concerning the merits of confiscation. Questions about personal use, deliberate concealment, the existence of a genuine purchase invoice and an intention to evade duty were matters to be examined on merits. They did not determine whether CESTAT had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Sri Utnoor Venkatesh

Examining Section 129A(1), the Tribunal noted that the first proviso expressly bars an appeal before it against a Commissioner (Appeals)’ order relating to goods imported or exported as baggage.

It explained that Section 129DD provides the corresponding revision remedy before the Central Government for orders falling within that exclusion.

The Bench relied on the Madras High Court’s judgment in Commissioner of Customs (Airport) v. Ahamed Gani Natchiar. As described in the present order, that case also involved gold jewellery recovered from an international passenger’s person. The High Court had set aside the Tribunal’s order for lack of jurisdiction while allowing the statutory revision remedy to be pursued.

The Bench further referred to Mohamed Mansoor–Mahabubunissa v. Commissioner of Customs, in which the Mumbai Bench had considered the Vicky Ramchand Asrani ruling but nevertheless held that baggage-related appeals fell outside CESTAT’s jurisdiction.

It also relied on earlier Hyderabad Bench decisions, including Shri Abdul Raheem Kaulani, Shri Mohd Dosri and the August 7, 2026 decision in Mohd Asif Uddin, which concerned gold chains brought by an arriving passenger.

The Tribunal distinguished the appellant’s reliance on Vicky Ramchand Asrani, noting that the decision had adopted a restrictive interpretation of the expression “baggage” in the context of assessment and confiscation proceedings.

Sustaining the Department’s preliminary objection, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order concerned goods imported as baggage and consequently fell outside its jurisdiction.

It directed the Registry to return the appeal papers to the appellant after retaining the necessary copies, enabling him to approach the competent Revisionary Authority under Section 129DD.

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: Refined Palm Oil Can’t Get Crude Palm Oil Customs Duty Concession: CESTAT