2013 (10) TMI 182 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction of Tribunal Interpretation of Section 129A of Customs Act - Goods Short Landed - Revenue raises a preliminary objection that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in view of the provisions in the first proviso to section 129A of the Appellate Tribunal Held that - After going through the provisions of Section 129A of the Customs Act - The bar in jurisdiction of the Tribunal was in all matters decided by Commissioner (Appeal) relating to cases where goods have been short landed and such bar was not with reference to any specific sections of the Customs Act under which the orders are passed - Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable before the Tribunal - However, liberty was given to the appellant to seek remedy before the appropriate authority.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal under section 129A of the Customs Act regarding short landing of import goods.

Analysis:

1. Facts and Background:
The appellant imported scrap steel from Malaysia, but upon arrival at Tuticorin Port, it was discovered that the containers were empty instead of containing steel scrap. A penalty of Rs.1 lakh was imposed on the importer under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Appeal before Tribunal:
The appellants challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

3. Jurisdiction Objection:
The Learned Assistant Revenue (AR) raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the first proviso to section 129A of the Appellate Tribunal. The objection was based on the specific provisions related to short landing of import goods required to be unloaded at the destination in India.

4. Arguments:
The AR contended that the appeal should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction as it pertains to short landing of import goods. On the other hand, the appellant's advocate argued that since the penalty was imposed under section 117 of the Customs Act and not under section 116, the Tribunal should have the authority to decide the appeal.

5. Decision and Analysis:
After considering the arguments and provisions of Section 129A of the Customs Act, the judge found that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The judge agreed with the AR's submission that the bar on jurisdiction applies to cases decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) related to short landed goods, irrespective of the specific sections under which the orders were passed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable before the Tribunal, but the appellant was granted liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate authority.

6. Conclusion:
The judgment highlighted the importance of jurisdictional issues under the Customs Act, specifically concerning short landing of import goods. It clarified the limitations of the Tribunal's authority in such cases and emphasized the need for appellants to adhere to the prescribed procedures for seeking legal remedies.