1990 (9) TMI 169 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of the appeal filed by the Asstt. Director, Revenue Intelligence under Sec. 129A of the Customs Act.
- Interpretation of the term "aggrieved person" under Sec. 129A.
- Comparison of the present case with the Delhi High Court judgment.
- Consideration of the role of investigating officers in filing appeals.
- Analysis of the implications of allowing officers to file appeals based on revenue interests.
- Examination of the provisions under Sec. 129D of the Customs Act for safeguarding revenue interests.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay dealt with the maintainability of an appeal filed by the Asstt. Director, Revenue Intelligence against an order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay releasing certain consignments. The Appellate Tribunal considered the argument presented by Shri Mondal, representing the appellant, that the Asstt. Director, being aggrieved by the order which was against public and revenue interest, had the right to file the appeal under Sec. 129A. Shri Mondal heavily relied on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in a different case to support the appellant's standing as an aggrieved party. However, the Tribunal found that the factual circumstances in the present case were distinct from the Delhi High Court case. The Tribunal highlighted a previous decision where it was held that allowing officers to file appeals based on revenue interests could lead to indiscipline and chaos in revenue administration.

The Tribunal emphasized that officers or investigating agencies should not be allowed to file appeals under Sec. 129A merely because revenue interests are at stake. It was noted that separate provisions exist under Sec. 129D of the Customs Act to safeguard revenue interests, and the proper course of action for the Department in such cases would be to seek a review by the Board for authorization to file an appeal. The Tribunal concluded that permitting officers to file appeals based on revenue considerations would encourage indiscipline and chaos within revenue administration. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Asstt. Director, Revenue Intelligence was deemed not maintainable, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without prejudice to the Department's recourse under Sec. 129D of the Customs Act.

In light of the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of non-maintainability, the Tribunal also ruled that the stay application did not survive for consideration. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding discipline and proper procedures in revenue administration, highlighting the significance of adhering to the specific provisions within the Customs Act for addressing issues related to revenue interests and appeals.