9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, in terms of Section 129C of the Customs Act 1962, the President of the CESTAT is required to constitute a Division Bench consisting of a judicial and a technical member to consider and decide an appeal filed in respect of Customs House Agent (CHA) licence revocation/suspension matters. The president of CESTAT had constituted a Division Bench for such purpose. By the impugned order, the Single Bench has acted in breach of such direction of the President of CESTAT. The impugned order has been passed by a single member which is in violation of Section 129C and the directions of the President of CESTAT. He relies upon a circular dated November 18, 2013 issued by the Registrar of CESTAT w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other member of the Appellate Tribunal authorised in this behalf by the President may, sitting singly, dispose of any case which has been allotted to the Bench of which he is a member where- (a) the value of the goods confiscated without option having been given to the owner of the goods to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation under section 125;or (b) in any disputed case, other than a case where the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment is in issue or is one of the points in issue, the difference in duty involved or the duty involved;or (c) the amount of fine, or penalty involved, does not exceed [fifty lakh rupees]" It appears that, mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the single member passing the impugned was duly authorized by the President of CESTAT to hear and adjudicate the matter, sitting singly. In absence such authorization under Section 129C(4) of the Act of 1962, I am afraid that, the singe member had jurisdiction to decide the case and pronounce the impugned order. Existence of statutory alternative remedy against the impugned order under Section 130 of the Act of 1962 is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition particularly when the petitioner has been able to substantiate that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and is a nullity. The impugned order is, therefore, a nullity. The impugned order is quashed. W.P. No.26793 (W) of 2017 is disposed of. No o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
