1989 (7) TMI 202 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of appeals filed by HPF.
2. Definition and scope of "person aggrieved" under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Legal standing of HPF to file appeals against the orders of the Collectors of Customs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Appeals Filed by HPF:
The primary issue was whether the two appeals filed by HPF were maintainable. Northern Plastics argued that HPF were not "aggrieved persons" within the meaning of Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962, and therefore, had no right to file appeals against the orders passed by the Collectors of Customs. The Tribunal had to first decide on the maintainability of these appeals before delving into the merits of the case.

2. Definition and Scope of "Person Aggrieved" Under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962:
Shri Kantawala, representing Northern Plastics, argued that the term "person aggrieved" was not defined in the Customs Act. He referred to various legal dictionaries and case laws to assert that a "person aggrieved" does not include someone who is merely disappointed by an order. He cited several judgments, including those from the High Courts of Allahabad and Bombay, to support his argument that HPF did not qualify as "persons aggrieved" since they were not directly affected by the orders of the Collectors.

Shri Sanghi, representing HPF, countered by arguing that HPF were indeed "persons aggrieved" as the orders impugned before the Tribunal harmed their interests. He emphasized that HPF, being a Government of India company, had a vital interest in preventing illegal importation which could adversely affect their operations and the national economy. He cited judgments from the Supreme Court, including S.P. Gupta and Bar Council of Maharashtra v. V.M. Dabholkar, to argue for a liberal interpretation of the term "person aggrieved."

The Tribunal noted that the Customs Act did not explicitly define "person aggrieved" and relied on judicial interpretations. It referred to various case laws and legal dictionaries to understand the scope of the term. The Tribunal concluded that the term "person aggrieved" should be interpreted within the scope of the Customs Act and not beyond it. The Tribunal emphasized that it was a creature of the statute and not the Constitution, and its powers were confined to the provisions of the Customs Act.

3. Legal Standing of HPF to File Appeals Against the Orders of the Collectors of Customs:
The Tribunal examined whether HPF had the legal standing to file the appeals. It considered the arguments of both parties and the relevant case laws. The Tribunal referred to the judgments in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Polychem Ltd., and Mahendra and Mahendra v. CCE, among others, to understand the scope of the right to appeal under the Customs Act.

The Tribunal observed that while HPF might have a right to file a suit, they did not have a right to file an appeal against the Collectors' orders. It noted that the right of appeal is not inherent and must be conferred by statute. The Tribunal concluded that HPF were not "persons aggrieved" for the purpose of filing the appeals under Section 129-A of the Customs Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as not maintainable, holding that HPF did not qualify as "persons aggrieved" under Section 129-A of the Customs Act. The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous applications filed by Northern Plastics, challenging the maintainability of the appeals. The Tribunal also noted that the merits of the case could still be examined through the statutory appeal filed by the Collector, Rajkot, acting under the orders of the Central Board of Excise & Customs.