1993 (9) TMI 107 - SC - Customs

Whether a member of CEGAT sitting singly could in law have heard the appeal before it? Held that - Appeal dismissed on the ground that the appellants were in error in contending that their appeal before CEGAT ought to have been heard by a Special Bench and could not have been heard and decided by a member of CEGAT, sitting singly. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of a single member of CEGAT hearing the appeal.
2. Determination of whether the appeal involved a question relating to the rate of customs duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of a Single Member of CEGAT Hearing the Appeal:

The primary issue in this appeal was whether a single member of the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) could legally hear the appeal. The appellant argued that the case involved questions relating to the rate of customs duty, which should have been heard by a Special Bench of CEGAT, as per Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent contended that no such question was involved, and therefore, it was appropriate for a single member to hear the appeal.

2. Determination of Whether the Appeal Involved a Question Relating to the Rate of Customs Duty or the Value of Goods for Assessment Purposes:

The court examined Section 129C of the Customs Act, which outlines the procedure for the Appellate Tribunal. Sub-section (3) specifies that appeals involving the determination of questions related to the rate of customs duty or the value of goods for assessment must be heard by a Special Bench consisting of at least two members. Sub-section (4) allows a single member to hear cases where the value of goods or the amount of fine or penalty does not exceed Rs. 50,000, provided that the case does not involve questions related to the rate of customs duty or the value of goods for assessment.

The court emphasized the importance of the phrase "for purposes of assessment" in determining whether a Special Bench was required. It clarified that cases involving direct and proximate questions related to the rate of customs duty or the value of goods for assessment must be heard by a Special Bench due to their broader implications for other importers.

In this case, the court concluded that the order of the Additional Collector, which involved the confiscation of goods with an option to pay a fine, did not have a direct or proximate relation to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes. The possibility that questions related to duty and value might arise later was considered too remote to meet the test for requiring a Special Bench.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's contention that their appeal should have been heard by a Special Bench was incorrect. The appeal was appropriately heard by a single member of CEGAT, as it did not involve direct and proximate questions related to the rate of customs duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.