ORDER
K. Gopal Hegde, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-63/87PAS dated 4-9-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.
2. This appeal was listed for short hearing to-day. The short hearing was for the purpose of satisfying the Tribunal as to the maintainability of the appeal.
3. The appellant claimed clearance of a revolver as baggage item. The Asstt. Collector ordered confiscation relying on the Public Notice No. 131/ITC(PN) 85-88 dated 13-11 -1986 as well as the earlier Public Notice No. 27 as ITC (PN)/80 dated 15-7-1980 which according to the Asstt. Collector imposed prohibition for the import of fire-arm without valid import licence as baggage item. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order and rejected the appeal. Against this order the present appellant has filed this appeal. Since the order of the Collector (Appeals) is dated 4-9-1987 by which time the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear appeals against the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) in respect of baggage cases have been taken away, a notice was issued to the appellant to satisfy the Tribunal regarding its jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Shri Sindhi appeared for the appellant and submitted that the revolver in question was brought as a baggage item. He will have no objection if the Tribunal transfers these papers to the Revisional authority. After hearing Shri Sindhi, the Departmental Representative was not called upon to argue.
4. The Customs Act, 1962 was amended by the Finance Act, 1984, Section 40 of the said Finance Act, inter alia, provided that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeals in respect of . any order referred to in clause (b) of-Section 129A of the Customs Act if such order relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage.
5. Apparently the appellant was mis-led by the preamble to the Collector (Appeals) order. But then the law is clear and unambiguous. It admits of no doubt. After the coming into force of the Finance Act of 1984 no appeal lies to the Tribunal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) if that order relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage.
6. In the instant case it has been the contention of the appellant all through that the revolver in question was imported as baggage. In the circumstances, the appeal filed to the Tribunal is not maintainable in law.
7. Shri Sindhi had requested to transfer the appeal records to the Revisional authority. The Customs Act does not provide for transfer. As has been held earlier by the Tribunal following the judgment of the Madras High Court, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to transfer the appeal wrongly filed before the Tribunal. It could only return to the party for presentation to the proper forum. I therefore reject the request of Shri Sindhi.
8. As no appeal lies to the Tribunal against impugned order, the Registry is directed to return the appeal papers to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum.