ASHOK JINDAL:

The present appeal is filed by Mr. Hiren Vithaldas Dhakan (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”), against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 17.04.2026, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) while disposing of the appeal filed by the Department. The Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had in effect allowed the appeal of the Department by way of remand for fresh adjudication, while setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 13.09.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant was exonerated of all the charges by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the Appellant is aggrieved with summarily setting aside of such exoneration by Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

The Department had filed appeal for setting aside the said Order-in-Original dated 13.09.2024 with prayers to decide the points and to examine correctness of Order-in-Original, inter alia, in respect of allegedly ignoring the role of the Appellant and not imposing any penalty on him in the instant case.

Vide the impugned common Order, the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has remanded the matter back to Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication without recording any reason for reconsideration of the exoneration of the Appellant.

The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant had invited attention to the records and the written submissions filed by the Appellant in support of the appeal.

In response to the instant Appeal, the Department has filed its written response in two parts and has also filed a compilation of judgments. The contents of the same are reproduced in the separate Order in Appeal no. C/50352/2026 filed by the passenger namely, Mr. Yamal Manojbhai Jagada.

Findings recorded in the separate Order in Appeal no. C/50352/2026 filed by the passenger Mr. Yamal Manojbhai Jagada, on the aspects of preliminary objections on maintainability of Appeal and deferment sought for a period permissible for cross-objections, are also applicable even in this appeal against the common impugned Order-in-Appeal. The same are reiterated, but not reproduced for the sake of brevity. Additionally, so far as this appellant is concerned, he is not amongst a passenger, crew or person transferring his residence, to whom Baggage Rules apply. No goods had been seized from his possession. He is therefore not even a person to whom any of the statutory provisions concerning baggage, baggage allowance or the Baggage Rules, referred by the Department apply. Accordingly, for the same reasons as recorded in the separate Order in respect of Appeal no. C/50352/2026 coupled with the said additional grounds, neither the appellant can be relegated to revision u/s 129DD by holding the instant appeal as not maintainable u/s 129A, not is there any merit in deferment for period prescribed for cross-objection.

Vide the aforestated written responses in two parts, the Department has demonstrated the allegations and the manner in which the appeal came to be filed. It is categorical concluding contention of the Department that – “The Tribunal should not enter into whether the remand was right or wrong. The Commissioner (Appeal) exercised a lawful discretion to remand.” With this concluding stand taken by the Department in written responses to the instant Appeal, it is clear that according to the Department the Order-in-Appeal is correct exercise of discretion by the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), and since the Department stand is that the Tribunal shall not enter into whether the remand was right or wrong, there is no question of any appeal by the Department by way of cross-objection. Since, two written responses to the Appeal has been filed with compilation of judgments before commencement of final arguments on the appeal, the requirements of natural justice are satisfied.

The Show Cause Notice in the instant case mainly referred and relied upon, inter alia, upon seizure Panchanama dated 04.10.2022 from the possession of the passenge