2023 (11) TMI 841 - AT - Customs

Dismissal of appeal - appeals have not been filed by a person authorized under Rule 3 of Customs Appeal Rules, 1982 - procedural lapse or not - HELD THAT - It is seen that Custom House Agent cannot file appeal under his signature and authorization. Such signature or authorization can be made only if the importer is not in India at the material time and the Custom House Agent or any other person duly authorized for filing appeal in terms of Rule 3 of Customs Appeal Rules, 1982. This deficiency should have been pointed out by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the appellant and the same could have been corrected. This cannot be a ground for rejection of appeal itself. In the interest of justice, the impugned order set aside and matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to treat this as a defect and offer an opportunity to the appellant to correct the same in terms of Rule 3 of the Custom Appeals Rules, 1982 - appeal allowed b way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal filed by M/s. A R Thermosets Pvt Ltd dismissed due to lack of authorization u/s Rule 3 of Customs Appeal Rules, 1982.

Details:
The appeals were filed by M/s. A R Thermosets Pvt Ltd against the dismissal of their appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of lack of authorization u/s Rule 3 of Customs Appeal Rules, 1982. The appellant's counsel argued that the dismissal solely on this ground was unjustified as it was a procedural matter that could have been corrected. The Custom House Agent had signed the appeals, and it was noted that the authorization should have been given by the Importers themselves, or a person duly authorized under Rule 3 of Customs Appeal Rules, 1982.

Upon considering the submissions, it was found that the appeals were indeed signed by the Custom House Agent, which was not in compliance with the requirements of Rule 3 of Customs Appeal Rules, 1982. The Tribunal held that this deficiency should have been pointed out to the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) and given an opportunity to correct it. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to treat the lack of proper authorization as a defect and allow the appellant to rectify it in accordance with Rule 3 of the Custom Appeals Rules, 1982.

The Tribunal directed that the matters be sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide the appellant with an opportunity to rectify the authorization issue. Once the defect is corrected, the Commissioner (Appeals) may proceed to decide the matters on their merits.