2021 (3) TMI 373 - HC - Customs

Absolute Confiscation - Foreign Currency Notes - imposition of penalty as well under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 13(1) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - HELD THAT - The appeal at Ext.P3 is undisputedly a joint appeal filed by both petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the adjudicating authority which is a common order. Rule 3(1) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 provides that the appeal under Section 128 is required to be filed in Form No.CA-1 provided under Chapter V of the said Rules. Form No.CA-1 contains seven particulars to be incorporated. Some of such particulars are date of communication of the decision or order appealed against, whether duty or penalty or both is deposited and if not, whether any application dispensing with such deposit is moved. It is thus clear that separate information can be there if the appeals are filed by different aggrieved persons. It will not be proper to entertain join appeal particularly when the consequence suffered by aggrieved persons are different. Similarly, statement of facts as well as relief claimed in appeal as stated in the prescribed form can be different for each aggrieved person - though the adjudicating authority can pass a common order affecting more than one person, the affected persons are supposed to file separate appeals so as to enable the Appellate Authority to deal with the same conveniently. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether petitioners need to file separate appeals challenging a common order.
2. Interpretation of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 regarding filing of appeals in prescribed forms.
3. Justifiability of the communication directing petitioners to file separate files for appeals.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioners challenged a communication directing them to file separate files challenging a common order. The petitioners argued that there is no provision or rule requiring them to file separate appeals when aggrieved by a common order. The adjudicating authority had passed a common order confiscating foreign currency and imposing penalties on both petitioners. The petitioners filed a joint appeal, but the respondent contended that appeals must be filed separately as per relevant rules.

Issue 2:
The judgment highlighted Rule 3(1) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, which mandates appeals under Section 128 to be filed in Form No.CA-1. The form requires specific particulars to be filled, including details like date of communication of the decision, deposit of duty or penalty, and relief claimed. The court emphasized that separate information may be necessary when appeals are filed by different aggrieved persons to accommodate varying consequences and relief sought by each individual.

Issue 3:
The court examined the prescribed form for appeals and concluded that it would not be appropriate to entertain joint appeals when the consequences suffered by aggrieved persons differ. While the adjudicating authority can issue a common order affecting multiple individuals, the affected parties are expected to file separate appeals to facilitate convenient handling by the Appellate Authority. The judgment also referenced Rule 6 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which governs the next appeal process to the Tribunal. Consequently, the communication directing the petitioners to file separate files for appeals was deemed justifiable, and the writ petition was dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Kerala High Court provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the legal interpretations made, and the reasoning behind the decision to dismiss the writ petition challenging the communication directing the petitioners to file separate files for appeals.