9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 1003 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - warehoused goods could not be cleared within the warehousing period - applied for extension rejected by the proper officer of customs - goods auctioned - It is submitted by the ld. SDR that no order of a Chief Commissioner is appealable to this Tribunal under Sec.129 A of the Customs Act, order is an administrative order rather than quasi-judicial and hence not appealable - Held that - It is not in dispute that the application submitted by the applicant to the Asstt. Commissioner pursuant to the Hon ble High Court s order could be considered only by the Chief Commissioner of Customs under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec.61 of the Act. Again it is not in dispute that the Chief Commissioner passed the impugned order after following the principles of natural justice. Obviously, the party subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner question whether the Chief Commissioner s order is appealable to this Tribunal needs to be answered in the negative - dismiss the appeal as not maintainable.
Issues: Appeal maintainability of Chief Commissioner's order under Customs Act.
Analysis: The case revolves around the appeal's maintainability concerning an order by the Chief Commissioner of Customs. The appellant imported goods worth over Rs. 3.8 crores, which were warehoused but not cleared within the stipulated period. The appellant's request for an extension was denied, leading to the auction of goods at Rs. 1.2 crores, with a balance duty of over Rs. 1.5 crores claimed by the department. The appellant filed a Writ Petition against the denial of extension and the duty demand, which was disposed of by the High Court, granting the petitioner the liberty to apply for waiver of duty, interest, and other charges. Subsequently, the Chief Commissioner declined the waiver request, prompting the present appeal. The key contention raised was whether the Chief Commissioner's order is appealable under Sec.129 A of the Customs Act. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that the order is administrative and not quasi-judicial, making it non-appealable. In response, the counsel presented two options for the Tribunal: remand the matter to the customs officer or dismiss the appeal. After thorough consideration, the Tribunal deemed the second option appropriate based on the facts. It was acknowledged that the Chief Commissioner's order was issued following natural justice principles, and the appellant voluntarily submitted to the Chief Commissioner's jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the Chief Commissioner's order is not appealable to the Tribunal per Sec.129 A of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of non-maintainability. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the appeal's maintainability concerning the Chief Commissioner's order under the Customs Act. The decision highlighted the non-appealable nature of the Chief Commissioner's order, emphasizing the adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice in the proceedings. The dismissal of the appeal underscored the legal constraints outlined in Sec.129 A of the Act, reinforcing the importance of jurisdictional clarity and procedural compliance in customs-related matters.
|
