9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 967 - AT - CustomsProceeding against the CHA - maintainability of revenue - revenue appeal - allegation of involvement in evasion of Customs duty on the import of electrical and electronic goods of foreign origin - Held that - CHALR, 1984 did not provide for filing of an appeal by the department against an order passed by the Commissioner under the said Regulations. Only a CHA aggrieved by any decision or order could appeal to the Tribunal in terms of sub-regulation (8) of Regulation 23. Section 129D under which the present appeal has been filed enables the Committee of Chief Commissioners to file an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner under the Customs Act. - Further, Section 129A of the Customs Act provides that only a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority is appealable before the Tribunal. - appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal - appeal dismissed - decided against the revenue.
Issues:
- Appeal against dropping of proceedings by Commissioner of Customs - Interpretation of provisions for filing appeals under CHALR, 1984 and Customs Act - Maintainability of appeal by Revenue under Section 129D of Customs Act Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the dropping of proceedings by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the involvement of a Customs House Agent (CHA) in evasion of Customs duty on imported goods. The inquiry revealed discrepancies in the declaration of goods by the CHA, leading to allegations of under-valuation and mis-declaration. The charge sheet was issued based on contraventions of various regulations under CHALR, 1984, which were found to be sustainable by the inquiry officer. 2. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner overlooked crucial evidence, including a confessional statement by the CHA's proprietor, corroborated by physical examination results, supporting the charges of contraventions. However, the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings citing lack of substantial evidence beyond the initial statement of the importer against the CHA. 3. The key legal issue revolved around the interpretation of provisions under CHALR, 1984, and the Customs Act regarding the filing of appeals. The Counsel for the CHA argued that there was no provision allowing the Revenue to appeal against the Commissioner's decision under CHALR, 1984. They highlighted that Section 129D of the Customs Act, under which the appeal was filed, did not cover orders made under CHALR, making the Revenue's appeal non-maintainable. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions and observed that CHALR, 1984 did not provide for appeals by the department against the Commissioner's orders. They emphasized that Section 129D of the Customs Act pertained to appeals against orders under the Act, not CHALR. The Tribunal clarified that appeals to the Tribunal were limited to decisions or orders by the Commissioner as an adjudicating authority under the Customs Act, excluding matters like revocation of CHA licenses or dropping of proceedings under CHALR. 5. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the absence of a specific provision enabling the department to appeal against the Commissioner's decision under CHALR, 1984. The judgment highlighted the distinction between orders under the Customs Act and CHALR, emphasizing the limited scope of appeals under the Customs Act before the Tribunal.
|
