Confiscation of Vehicles and Currency Falls Outside the Baggage Exception to CESTAT’s Appellate Jurisdiction

Customs authorities confiscated gold allegedly connected to a smuggling operation, Indian currency found in the petitioner’s car, and the car itself; they also imposed a penalty on the petitioner under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The appellate authority reduced the penalty to ₹1,50,000 but otherwise upheld the adjudication order.

The petitioner sought revision under Section 129DD against the confiscation of the vehicle and currency, the penalty, and related charges.

The Revision Authority rejected the application as not maintainable, reasoning that the challenged orders did not concern goods imported or exported as baggage.

The petitioner then challenged that rejection before the High Court.

1. Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the appellate order concerning confiscation of the vehicle and currency, and imposition of a penalty, was appealable to CESTAT under Section 129A or revisable by the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Customs Act

2. Whether the Revision Authority was justified in rejecting the revision application as not maintainable

Section 129A of the Customs Act provides for appeals to CESTAT against specified orders, including orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), subject to the first proviso, which excludes Tribunal jurisdiction over specified categories—including orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage, certain goods not unloaded at their destination, and drawback matters.

Section 129DD provides for revision by the Central Government in matters falling within the statutory revision jurisdiction.

The Court treated the first proviso to Section 129A as a limited exclusion: where an order does not fall within one of its specified categories, the Tribunal is not barred from hearing an appeal.

No precedent was relied upon.

The Court considered the nature of the relief sought and the goods or property involved.

The challenged measures concerned Indian currency, mobile phones, and a domestically registered car—not goods imported or exported as baggage, goods not unloaded at destination, or drawback.

The petitioner was not a passenger and had not imported or exported baggage; the car had allegedly been intended for use in carrying smuggled gold, but the Court noted that it had not been loaded with goods when seized.

Since none of the statutory exclusions applied, the Court held that CESTAT was not barred from entertaining an appeal under Section 129A and, by implication, the Central Government’s revision jurisdiction under Section 129DD did not apply.

It nevertheless granted the petitioner liberty to appeal to CESTAT under Section 129A within 30 days of receiving the order; if filed within that period, the appeal was to be decided on its merits without further reference to limitation.