2014 (3) TMI 135 - HC - Customs

Whether the CESTAT is right in law in directing the revenue to release the confiscated vessel while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962? - Held that - The order dated 2014 (3) TMI 82 - CESTAT MUMBAI which is impugned before us is not an order passed under proviso to Section 129 of the Customs Act 1962 but is an order passed by the Tribunal in its inherent jurisdiction in exercise of it powers as an appellate authority in a pending appeal. In the above view of the matter the question of law as proposed by the revenue is not a substantial question of law and therefore, we see no reason to entertain the present appeal. - appeal dismissed - decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the Tribunal's order allowing a vessel to be taken out of India.
2. Interpretation of jurisdiction under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a vessel, "Geo Hindsagar," held by the Commissioner of Customs under the Customs Act, 1962. The vessel was classified under Chapter 89 Heading 8905, with confirmed duty payable and confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. An appeal was filed, and the Tribunal granted a stay on the duty and penalty, allowing the vessel to be kept in India pending appeal.

2. The respondent sought permission to take the vessel to Sultanate of Oman for a contract, but the Customs authorities initially refused. The Tribunal, in an order dated 27 January 2014, directed the Customs to allow the vessel to be taken out of India for 6 months with an undertaking. The revenue challenged this decision, questioning the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The High Court held that the Tribunal's order was not solely under Section 129E but also under its inherent powers as an appellate authority. The order of 27 January 2014 was seen as part of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in a pending appeal, not limited to the proviso of Section 129. Consequently, the revenue's question of law was deemed insubstantial, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with no costs.

4. The Court emphasized the need for the revenue to promptly implement the Tribunal's order, indicating a conclusion to the legal dispute regarding the vessel "Geo Hindsagar." The judgment highlighted the Tribunal's broader jurisdiction beyond specific statutory provisions, ensuring a fair and comprehensive review of customs matters in appeals before the appellate authority.