Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mr. Saeed Ahmed Mohammed Ali Wadwan vs Commissioner Of Customs(C.S.I. ... on 17 December, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO.C/86032/14-MUM [Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. MUM- CUSTM PAX - APP-531 & 532/13-14 dated 20/1/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai- Zone III] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes
authorities?
=======================================================
Mr. Saeed Ahmed Mohammed Ali Wadwan
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Customs(C.S.I. Airport), Mumbai
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri. C.S. Biradar, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri. M. K. Mall. Asst. Commissioner (A.R.) for the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 17/12/2014
Date of decision: 17/12/2014
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
The appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. MUM- CUSTM PAX - APP-531 & 532/13-14 dated 20/1/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai- Zone III. The issue involved in the present case is confiscation of Indian Currency from the appellant, who is a passenger. In the impugned order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the redemption of currency on a fine of Rs. 80,000/-.
2. In the beginning of the argument, Shri M. K. Mall, Ld. Asst. Commissioner (A.R.) raised an objection that the appeal is not maintainable for reason that this particular nature of case is excluded from provision of appeal, where the appeal lie before the tribunal, in terms of first proviso to Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962.
3. On the other hand, Shri. C.S. Biradar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is under bonafide belief that since the case involves redemption fine and penalty, it is appealable to this Tribunal, however he seeks liberty to approach to the appropriate forum.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.
5. I found that the present case involves the attempt of export of Indian currency as baggage. In such nature of case the appeal does not lie before this Tribunal in terms of Section 129A which is reproduced below:-
SECTION 129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. (1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order -
(a) a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority
(b) an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128A;
(c) an order passed by the Board or the Appellate Commissioner of Customs under Section 128, as it stood immediately before the appointed day;
(d) an order passed by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, either before or after the appointed day, under section 130, as it stood immediately before that day :
Provided that 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, -
(a) any goods imported or exported as baggage;
(b) 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;
(c) payment of drawback as provided in Chapter X, and the rules made thereunder :
From the clause (a) of first proviso to Section 129A, it is clear that in case of any goods of import and export as baggage, the appeal does not lie before this appellate Tribunal. However, the appellant was supposed to file Revision Application before the Revisionary Authority of Government of India under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962.
5.1 In view of above statutory provision, the present appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal, hence the same is dismissed as non maintainable. However, the appellant is granted liberty to file the Revision Application before the appropriate forum.
(Dictated in court) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial)) sk 4