9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said letter dated 05.12.2013 is issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant has entertained the belief that since the above letter has been issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Customs, the same should be considered as an appealable order in terms of Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, and accordingly, the appeal has been preferred in this Tribunal. The question involved in this appeal for consideration is as to whether the above referred letter of Asst. Commissioner can be considered as an order, against which appeal can be preferred before the Tribunal? 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that since the decision has been taken by the Commissioner of Customs for E-auct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act') provides different types of orders against which appeal can be preferred before the Appellate Tribunal. In clause (a) of the said section, it has been provided that a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority can be appealed against before the Appellate Tribunal. The term "adjudicating authority" has been defined in sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act to mean any authority competent to pass any order or decision under the Act. 4.2. On a conjoint reading of the statutory provisions contained in Sections 129A and 2(1) of the Act, it would transpire that the order passed or decision taken by the Commissioner of Customs in the capac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication order of Commissioner of Customs, conveying the decision or order has been communicated to the appellant. In this context, the law is well settled that in the matter of adjudication, the adjudicator exercises the powers of a quasi-judicial authority, and therefore, he is required to act judicially and not arbitrarily or capriciously. 4.4. Thus, to make a 'decision' or an 'order' judicial, the following criteria must be established: (a) determination upon investigation of the question by an application of objective standard to facts found in the light of the existing rules, (b) the investigation is subject to certain proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs under his signature dated 15.12.1982, which was challenged before the Tribunal. With regard to maintainability of the said order, the Tribunal had recorded the following observations in the order dated 29.07.1983: 15. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced on both sides on the question whether an appeal lies to the Tribunal against the 'order' dated 24/09/1982 of the Collector. It is quite obvious that the Collector himself regarded this as an order against which an appeal lies to the Tribunal, since the preface to the order clearly says so. Again, the order ends by saying 'I, therefore, order that the demand notice already issued in terms of Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962, be enforced'. This is clearly an orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would lie to the Tribunal and not to the Collector (Appeals). Thus, the relied upon decision is distinguishable. 5.3 The other decisions cited by the appellant have no relevance to the facts of the present case, because the issue concerning appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 129A(1)(a) was not the subject matter of dispute in those decided cases. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned letter dated 05.12.2013 of the Asst. Commissioner of Customs cannot be considered as an appealable order for filing appeal before this Tribunal in terms of Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. As such, we find no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant. Accordingly, both the stay application and the appeal are rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rade Marks Act 1999, parallel imports are allowed and therefore there is no violation of Intellectual Property Rights(Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 and the department is free to proceed with the e-auction. They were also informed that they were free to participate in the e-auction on 05.12.2013, the bond and the security furnished were returned and the appellant was informed that they should participate in the auction. The appeal has been filed against this letter. In our opinion, once the goods have been confiscated the Government has become the owner as per the provisions of Customs Act with which we are concerned. It would not be appropriate to sit in appeal against the decision to auction the goods by the Commissioner unless i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
