9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1043 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal the CESTAT - release of seized goods - Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that no appeal under section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is maintainable against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs dated 28 June 2019 against the order /communication rejecting the request of original release of seized goods? HELD THAT - The Division Bench in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT -I) MUMBAI VERSUS S.S. OFFSHORE PVT. LTD. 2017 (12) TMI 1460 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has considered the provisions of section 129A(1) of the Act of 1962 and has held that an appeal from communication / order in respect of provisional release of goods is maintainable before the Tribunal. The position is settled that an appeal would be maintainable from a communication or order, whatever be the nomenclature in respect of provisional release of goods before the Appellate Tribunal. Presumably this position of law was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal when it passed the impugned order. In these circumstances, the question of law as framed will have to be answered in favour of the Appellant. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing appeal under Customs Act, 1962 - Maintainability of appeal under section 129A(1) against order rejecting release of seized goods. Analysis: The appellant, a company engaged in importing food items, including in-shell walnuts, filed an appeal under section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, against the order of the Commissioner of Customs rejecting the release of seized goods. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, leading to the admission of the appeal on the substantial question of law regarding the maintainability of such appeals. The impugned order by the Tribunal was based on the interpretation of the term "adjudicating authority" under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that the rejection of the request for provisional release of seized goods did not constitute an order or decision under the Act, making it not appealable under section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. This interpretation formed the basis for dismissing the appeal. In support of the appellant's case, reference was made to a decision by the Division Bench of the High Court in a similar matter, where it was held that appeals concerning provisional release of goods are maintainable before the Tribunal. The court emphasized that the nomenclature of the communication or order regarding provisional release does not affect the appeal's maintainability. The court also highlighted instances where petitioners were directed to appeal for such matters, reinforcing the position that appeals in these cases are permissible. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and restored the appeal to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on its merits within a specified timeframe. The court directed the registry to communicate the order promptly to the Tribunal for further action, thereby resolving the issue of the appeal's maintainability under section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
