2024(12)LCX0084

Abdul Raheem Kaulani

Versus

Commissioner of Customs

Customs Appeal No. 30487 of 2024 decided on 02-12-2024

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I

Single Member Bench

Customs Appeal No. 30487 of 2024

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-CUS-000-APP1-012-24-25, dated 26.07.2024 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax (Appeals-I), Hyderabad)

Sri Abdul Raheem Kaulani                 .. APPELLANT
(S/o Ldate Abdul Rahman
Bin Salam Kaulani)
H.No.18-2-43/3/A62,
Ghazimillat Colony,
Chandrayangutta,
Hyderanbad,
Telangana – 500 005.

                VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs                 .. RESPONDENT
Hyderabad – Customs
Kendriya Shulk Bhavan,
L.B. Stadium Road,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad,
Telangana – 500 004.

APPEARANCE:
Shri Ibad Ur Rehman Khan, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri A Rangadham, Authorised Representative for the Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No. A/30411/2024

Date of Hearing:02.12.2024
Date of Decision:02.12.2024

[ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD]

    Before the appeal is taken up by this Bench, the Learned AR raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal in terms of proviso to Section 129A and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), if such order, interalia, relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage. As per Section 129A(1) proviso of Customs Act, 1962:

“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;…………”.

Learned AR has relied on the following judgements to support his argument:

i) The Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Vs Ahamed Gani Natchiar & Ahamed Gani Natchiar Vs Pr. Commissioner of Customs, Customs Commissionerate-I (Airport), Asst Commissioner of Customs (AIU), Asst Commissioner of Customs (Disposal), The Chief Manager [2022 (10) TMI 100-Madras High Court]

ii) Y.R. Iyer Vs Union of India & 2 [2011 (11) TMI 630 – Gujarat High Court]

Learned AR has also relied on the following two judgements of this Hyderabad Bench:

i) Ayesha Begum Vs Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad- GST [2023 (8) TMI 64 – CESTAT, Hyderabad]

ii) Juweria Fatima Vs Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad – GST [2023 (7) TMI 191 – CESTAT, Hyderabad]

2. The brief facts of the case is vide Panchanama proceedings dated 07.03.2023 the foreign currency i.e. UAE Dirhams 50,000/- equivalent to INR 10,90,000/- (Ten Lakhs and Ninety Thousand only) 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.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant admit that the matter relates to Revisional Authority and not to Hon’ble Tribunal. Therefore, he also requests for return the appeal for filing in proper forum.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. 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.

6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(ANGAD PRASAD)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)