9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appealability of an interim order under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Denial of right of appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Unreasonable restrictions imposed on seeking release of goods. 4. Adjudication pending before the authority. 5. Proper relief sought by the appellant. 6. Cooperation for proper identification of goods before release. Analysis: 1. The learned Counsel argued that the order dated 19th August, 2009, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Adjudication), is appealable under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, as it touches the appellant's rights. The term 'adjudicating authority' as defined by Section 2(1) includes quasi-judicial orders, making the appellant entitled to appeal such orders. Although Section 129-A does not expressly provide for appealability of Section 110-A orders, the interim order falls within its scope, rendering denial of appeal rights baseless. 2. It was contended that Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, enacted from 13-7-2006, necessitates consequential amendments to Section 129-A. The denial of appeal rights under Section 129-A for orders under Section 110-A is argued to be unjust, as demonstrated by the appellant's reliance on a previous Tribunal's decision in a similar case. 3. The appellant sought release of goods by furnishing a bank guarantee and bond, objecting to the unreasonable restriction imposed by a declaration required through an affidavit. This restriction was deemed excessive, hindering the appellant's ability to present a defense during adjudication. 4. The Tribunal noted that adjudication was pending before the authority, and the interim order under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, was passed as a quasi-judicial measure. The appellant was not to be left without recourse, and the focus shifted to determining the appropriate forum for seeking relief while adjudication was ongoing. 5. The Tribunal directed the appellant to approach the Commissioner, ICD, Tughlakabad, within 10 days to propose necessary actions for releasing the goods, subject to proper identification and fulfillment of other conditions specified in the order dated 19-8-2009. The order was emphasized as an interim measure without setting any precedent, with the appeal's maintainability still under consideration. 6. Emphasizing cooperation between both parties for the accurate identification of goods before release, the Tribunal highlighted the need for transparency and mutual agreement on the identification process. The order was passed, disposing of the Misc. Application, with the understanding that the appeal's maintainability would be further deliberated based on the circumstances of the case.
|
