2014 (2) TMI 17 - AT - Customs

Amendment of the IGM - proper officer - Whether appeals are not maintainable under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, since the Order impugned were passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, and appeals against the same are to be filed before the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that - the proper officer in the present case is the Assistant Commissioner of Customs under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, for disposal of the representations of the Appellant relating to amendment of the IGM, as per Notification No.40/2012-Customs(NT) dated 02.05.2012 issued under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962. In these circumstances, the Appeals filed against the decisions of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Paradip, are not maintainable under Section 129A of the Customs Act, and accordingly, the same are dismissed. Miscellaneous Applications are also disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Early hearing of appeals due to live consignments pending clearance.
2. Maintainability of appeals under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 against decisions/letters of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.

Issue 1: Early Hearing of Appeals
The Applicant filed two Miscellaneous Applications seeking early hearing of the Appeals as live consignments were pending clearance for an extended period, potentially incurring heavy demurrage charges. The ld. Advocate highlighted the grave irreparable harm, loss, and injury that would be caused if the Appeals were not expedited. The ld. AR for the Revenue did not object to allowing the Miscellaneous Applications for early hearing. Consequently, with the consent of both parties, the Appeals were taken up for hearing promptly.

Issue 2: Maintainability of Appeals
The ld. AR raised a preliminary objection, contending that the Appeals were not maintainable under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The objection was based on the fact that the Appeals were filed against decisions/letters of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Paradip, and as per the ld. AR, appeals against such decisions should have been filed before the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Advocate for the Appellant argued that the decisions were made by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Customs following representations made to the Commissioner of Customs. The ld. AR countered by stating that the decisions/letters were independently issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and not on the direction of the Commissioner. The ld. AR further pointed out various correspondences addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, emphasizing that the decisions were made by him on merit after considering all representations. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the record, concluded that the Appeals filed against the decisions of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Paradip, were not maintainable under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the claim that the decisions were made by the Commissioner of Customs and communicated by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the Appeals were dismissed, and the Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of early hearing of appeals and the maintainability of appeals under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 against decisions/letters of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the arguments presented by both parties and a detailed review of the relevant facts and legal provisions.