Dismissed

Shri Sonu Kumar Chaurasiya v. Lucknow Prev

CESTAT27 Oct 2025C/70422/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal held that an appeal cannot be entertained in cases where gold or other dutiable goods are recovered from the baggage of a passenger. Relying on Section 129A(1) proviso (a) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Court declared the appeal non-maintainable and dismissed it. The Court dismissed the appeal as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over appeals regarding goods imported or exporte

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant was directed to pursue remedy before the appropriate forum, if possible.

Shri Sonu Kumar Chaurasiya vs Lucknow Prev — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2025)

¶1

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.II

¶3

Customs Appeal No.70422 of 2025

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.306-Cus/APPL/LKO/2024 dated 06/05/2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow)

¶5

Mr. Sonu Kumar Chaurasiya, (S/o Sri Mahatam Prasad Chaurasia, Adarsh Nagar, P.S. Mahadewa, Siwan, Bihar-841226)

¶6

…..Appellant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Commissioner of Customs (Pre.), Lucknow ….Respondent

¶9

(7^th Floor, Apratyaksh Kar Bhawan,

¶10

Vibhuti Kunad, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010)

¶11

APPEARANCE:

¶12

Absent on call, for the Appellant Smt. Chitra Srivastava, Authorised Representative for the Respondent

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶14

FINAL ORDER NO.70751/2025

¶15

DATE OF HEARING : 27 October, 2025 DATE OF DECISION : 27 October, 2025

¶16

SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:

¶17

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.306Cus/APPL/LKO/2024 dated 06/05/2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow.

¶18

2.1 The appellant arrived and intercepted at CCSI Airport, Lucknow on 19.12.2021 from Dubai by Flight No.FZ-433. He declared the dutiable goods as NIL. However, on search of the luggage of the appellant, a hammer was found in which gold weighing 228.800 gm valued at Rs.11,64,592/- was concealed. The recovered god along with hammer was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

¶19

Customs Appeal No.70422 of 2025

¶20

¶21

2.2 After enquiry and investigations in the matter, a show cause notice dated 12.05.2022 was issued proposing confiscation of the seized goods alongwith imposition of penalties on the appellant.

¶22

2.3 The show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-inOriginal dated 11.04.2023.

¶23

2.4 Aggrieved appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) which has been dismissed as per the impugned order.

¶24

2.5 Aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal.

¶25

3.1 Counsel for the appellant is absent on call. I have heard Smt Chitra Srivastava learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue. She informs that that the issue is in respect of the goods imported in the baggage of the passenger.

¶26

4.1 I have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument.

¶27

4.2 From the facts of the case as referred in para 2.1 it is evident that this appeal is filed in case of seizer/confiscation of gold recovered during search of a person and his luggage. The person had traveled from Dubai to India. The case being of a baggage seizure case, appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in this case could not lie before this Tribunal.

¶28

4.3 Rule 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 provides as under:-

¶29

129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal-

¶30

(1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order-

¶31

(a) -----------------------

¶32

(b) an order passed by the "Commissioner (Appeals)] under section 128A;

¶33

(c) -----------------------------

¶34

(d) --------------------------------

¶35

[PROVIDED that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have

¶36

Customs Appeal No.70422 of 2025

¶37

¶38

jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) if such order relates to,-

¶39

(a) any goods imported or exported as baggage;

¶40

(b) -------------------------------

¶41

(c) ---------------------------------“

¶42

4.4 At Sl. No.5 of appeal preamble of Order-in-Appeal No.306Cus/Appl/LKO/2024 dated 06/05/2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow following has been recorded:-

¶43

“5. सीमा शुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 dh /kkjk 129 ए dh mi/kkjk ds izFke izko/kku es a DykWt ¼/kkjk½ ( ए ) )सी( तथा )बी(में धनधााररत प्रकृधत क े ekeyks es a ds a a nzh; mRikn “kqYd vk;qDr ¼vihy½ ds }kjk ikfjr vihy ij vkns”k के धिरुद्ध ट्रीब्यूनल में अपील नहीं की जायेगी और ऐसे मामलो में उक्त अधधधनयम की धारा 129 डी डी में धनधहत प्रािधान dks देखा जाए ।“

¶44

4.5 Thus the appeal before CESTAT in the present case is not maintainable. Similar view has been expressed in the following cases:

¶45

Ashok Kumar [2000 (124) E.L.T. 770 (Tribunal)]

¶46

Mahabubunissa [Mumbai bench Final Order No. A/8526785268/2025 dated 17.02.2025 in Customs Appeal No. 85903 & 85904 OF 2022]

¶47

4.6 In the case of Ahamed Gani Natchiar [2022 (10) T.M.I. 100 - Madras High Court ] Hon’ble Madras High Court has held as follows:

¶48

“7. Against the above background, the following questions arise for consideration:

¶49

a. Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the plea of the appellant herein of lack of authority/ jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in view of the fact that the issue according to the appellant relates to goods imported as "Baggage" and thus falls within the exclusions carved out in the proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as under:

¶50

Customs Appeal No.70422 of 2025

¶51

¶52

Section 129A(1) in the Customs Act, 1962 …….

¶53

A reading of the above provision would show that the Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 A of the Customs Act, 1962 relating to any goods imported or exported as "Baggage".”

¶54

4.7 Undisputedly, the issue involved in the present case is in relation to the goods imported as baggage. From the above Section it is evident that the appeal in the present case against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) would not lie before this Tribunal. Accordingly, I hold that this appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal.

¶55

5.1 The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Appellant may pursue for remedy before appropriate forum, if possible.

¶56

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

¶57

(SANJIV SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶58

akp

Shri Sonu Kumar Chaurasiya v. Lucknow Prev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sonu Kumar Chaurasiya v. Lucknow Prev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basuna Traders vs Cochin-cus

Ladhubhai Keshav Lodhari vs Jamnagar(prev)

The Principal Commissioner Customs Bangalore vs M/s. Cast Craft Pvt. Ltd.

Ritesh Kumar Solanki vs Mysore

Bharat Mines And Minerals vs Chennai (port Export)

Kolkata(port) vs Kco Aluminium LLP

Larsen and Toubro Limited vs Commissioner of Customs - Chennai II (Import Commissionerate)

Sam Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs Chennai (Port Export)