2017 (12) TMI 1754 - AT - Customs

Interpretation of Staute - whether the Chief Commissioner is appointed as appellate authority or Revisional Authority under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 for hearing grievance of the aggrieved against the order of the Principal Commissioner, nothing is the outcome? - HELD THAT - Although on 26-4-2017 Revenue was informed to ascertain the capacity in which the Chief Commissioner functions under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, there is no reply from the Board and such silence is adding to litigations before the Tribunal - Bar submits today that a like nature case was before the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Girish B. Mishra 2013 (6) TMI 179 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat has dealt with the authority of Chief Commissioner in that case. It may be of great help for the Board to look into that case while replying to this Tribunal - We make it clear that if no reply is received by the Tribunal by 1st January 2018 it shall be treated that Chief Commissioner s order under the above Regulation is an appealable order before Tribunal and Tribunal shall proceed with the matter as an appeal filed against his order. Call the matter on 10th January, 2018.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of the authority of Chief Commissioner under Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998.
2. Examination of whether the order passed by Chief Commissioner is appealable before the Tribunal.
3. Requirement for the Board to clarify the capacity in which Chief Commissioner functions.
4. Judicial review of Chief Commissioner's order by the Tribunal.
5. Impact of the silence of the Board on litigations before the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal directed the Government to clarify whether the Chief Commissioner is designated as the appellate or revisional authority under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Board to address whether the Chief Commissioner's authority to hear representations against the Principal Commissioner's orders bars the remedy of appeal to the Tribunal. It was highlighted that the Chief Commissioner does not fall under the definition of 'Commissioner' as per the Customs Act, 1962, indicating a lack of quasi-judicial power, except for supervisory functions. The Tribunal called for an amendment to the law or an explanation regarding the nature of the Chief Commissioner's orders and their reviewability by the Tribunal.

2. Despite previous directions to ascertain the capacity in which the Chief Commissioner functions, the Board remained silent, leading to prolonged litigations. The Tribunal referenced a similar case before the High Court of Gujarat to highlight the relevance of addressing the authority of the Chief Commissioner. The Tribunal set a deadline, stating that if no reply is received by a specified date, the Chief Commissioner's order under the Regulations will be treated as appealable before the Tribunal, allowing the proceedings to continue as an appeal against his order.

3. The Tribunal stressed the importance of receiving a response from the Board by a specified date. Failure to provide clarification would result in the Tribunal treating the Chief Commissioner's order as appealable, thereby proceeding with the matter accordingly. This decision aimed to ensure clarity on the appealability of the Chief Commissioner's orders and to address the issue of prolonged litigations due to the Board's silence.

4. The Tribunal instructed the Deputy Registrar to forward a copy of the order to the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. This action was intended to prompt the issuance of appropriate guidelines to the Board, emphasizing the urgency of addressing matters of public interest promptly and efficiently. By involving the relevant authorities, the Tribunal sought to expedite the resolution of the issues concerning the authority and reviewability of the Chief Commissioner's orders.

5. The Tribunal scheduled a follow-up on 10th January, 2018, indicating its commitment to monitoring the progress of the case and ensuring timely resolution. The decision to call for further proceedings underscored the Tribunal's proactive approach in addressing the unresolved issues and the need for clarity regarding the Chief Commissioner's authority and the appeal process before the Tribunal.