1990 (3) TMI 78 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the order of the Customs, Excise, and Gold Control Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of the term "aggrieved persons" under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. The right of the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to file an appeal under Section 129-A.
4. The distinction between original proceedings and appeal proceedings under the Customs Act.
5. The role and powers of the Board and the Collector of Customs under Section 129-D of the Customs Act.
6. The impact of public interest on the interpretation of "aggrieved persons".
7. The procedural aspects and implications of the Tribunal's decision.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and validity of the order of the Customs, Excise, and Gold Control Tribunal:
The Tribunal held that neither the Union of India nor M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. are 'aggrieved persons' for filing an appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners challenged the importation of 59 jumbo rolls of "Cinematographic Colour Films (unexposed) Positive" by M/s. Northern Plastics Limited, claiming it was illegal. The High Court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation and that the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. are indeed 'aggrieved persons' with the right to appeal under Section 129-A.

2. Interpretation of the term "aggrieved persons" under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962:
The High Court held that the term "aggrieved persons" should be liberally construed. The Court referred to various decisions, including J.M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar and S.P. Gupta v. The President of India, to emphasize that the term denotes an elastic and elusive concept that cannot be confined within rigid bounds. The Court concluded that the Union of India and its instrumentalities, given their role in protecting national and public interest, qualify as 'aggrieved persons'.

3. The right of the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to file an appeal under Section 129-A:
The Court found that the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. have a vital interest in the protection of national and public interest, particularly in matters of illegal importation. The Court emphasized that the Central Government has the power to prohibit imports under Sections 11 and 11-A of the Customs Act, and thus, it has the right to file an appeal against such importation under Section 129-A.

4. The distinction between original proceedings and appeal proceedings under the Customs Act:
The Tribunal had distinguished between original proceedings in the High Court and appeal proceedings, stating that its powers were not as wide as those of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The High Court disagreed, stating that the principles of locus standi apply equally to both original and appeal proceedings. The Court held that the Tribunal's approach was erroneous and that the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. should be allowed to contest the appeals.

5. The role and powers of the Board and the Collector of Customs under Section 129-D of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal and the respondents argued that only the Board or the Collector of Customs could file an appeal under Section 129-D. The High Court clarified that Section 129-D is not a substitute for Section 129-A and that it provides a sui generis procedure for the Board to direct the Collector to apply to the Appellate Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the legislative history of Chapter XV indicates that the right of appeal under Section 129-A is broader and not limited to the Board or the Collector of Customs.

6. The impact of public interest on the interpretation of "aggrieved persons":
The Court highlighted that public interest is a guiding star in determining whether a person is an 'aggrieved person'. The Court noted that the Central Government has higher obligations regarding national economy, foreign trade, and protection of indigenous industries. The Court concluded that the Union of India and its instrumentalities, given their duty to protect public interest, should be recognized as 'aggrieved persons' under Section 129-A.

7. The procedural aspects and implications of the Tribunal's decision:
The High Court criticized the Tribunal for not permitting the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to contest the appeals. The Court noted that similar orders for impleadment were passed by the High Courts of Madras, Calcutta, and Delhi, and confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should have followed these precedents and allowed the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to participate in the appeal proceedings.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. are 'aggrieved persons' within the meaning of Section 129-A and are fully competent to maintain and file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court directed that the imported goods should not be released until the main question of the legality of importation is finally disposed of. The writ petition was partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

← Previous Next →