2013 (9) TMI 659 - AT - Customs

Application for early hearing Held that - The proper officer was the Assistant Commissioner of Customs u/s 30(3) for disposal of the representations of the Appellant relating to amendment of the IGM as per Notification No.40/2012 issued u/s 2(34) - Appeals filed against the decisions of the AC were not maintainable u/s 129A - On a plain reading of the decisions/letters, it was clear that the finding/decision was passed by the AC of Customs himself and not on the direction of the Commissioner of Customs - Nowhere in the said decisions/letters, the AC of Customs had mentioned that the same were communicated by him as being directed by the ld. Commissioner of Customs miscellaneous application also rejected - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Early hearing of Appeals
2. Maintainability of Appeals under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962

Early Hearing of Appeals:
The Applicant filed two Miscellaneous Applications seeking early hearing of the Appeals due to pending live consignments awaiting clearance to avoid heavy demurrage charges. The Applications were allowed with no objection from the Revenue's side, and the Appeals were taken up for hearing on an out-of-turn basis.

Maintainability of Appeals under Section 129A:
The Revenue raised a preliminary objection stating that the Appeals filed against two decisions/letters of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs were not maintainable under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Commissioner had independently passed the decisions without direction from the Commissioner. The Appellant argued that the decisions were taken by the Commissioner and communicated through the Assistant Commissioner. However, the Assistant Commissioner had not indicated in the decisions/letters that they were directed by the Commissioner. The correspondence from the Appellant was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, indicating that the decisions were made by him on merit after considering representations. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the Appellant's claim that the Commissioner made the decisions. As per Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, the Assistant Commissioner was the proper officer for such matters. Therefore, the Appeals against the decisions of the Assistant Commissioner were deemed not maintainable under Section 129A of the Customs Act, and were dismissed. The Miscellaneous Applications were also disposed of.

This judgment clarifies the importance of proper jurisdiction and the authority of officers in decision-making processes under the Customs Act, 1962. It emphasizes the need for clear evidence and adherence to legal provisions when challenging decisions before the appropriate appellate authority.