Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1997 - HC - CustomsProvisional Release of goods - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether an appeal lies before CESTAT against the order passed by the Commissioner (Customs) under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 for provisional release of the goods or not? - HELD THAT:- Two Member Bench of the Tribunal having doubt on the opinion expressed by an earlier decision of Larger Bench in Akanksha Syntax Private Limited’s case [2013 (9) TMI 138 - CESTAT MUMBAI], vide order dated 25-5-2015 referred the matter to the President of the Tribunal for consideration and constitution of a Larger Bench for decision of the issue - A perusal of the decision of the two Member Bench of the Tribunal shows that first contention raised by Learned Counsel for the appellant is totally misconceived as the matter was not referred to be heard by a Bench consisting of five members by the two members as it was merely referred to the President of the Tribunal for constitution of a Larger Bench. Thereafter, it was an administrative action by the President of the Tribunal considering the circumstances of the case as to how much members should constitute the Larger Bench. It cannot be disputed that the powers vested with the adjudicating authority to be exercised for considering the prayer for provisional release of goods is circumscribed with well-settled principles of law governing the same. Such an order is not based on any policy, rather on settled principles of law. These orders cannot be issued mechanically, rather many factors are required to be considered such as the nature of goods, seriousness of offence, whether the goods being imported are prohibited, etc. etc. Any such order passed has civil consequences, hence, it cannot be opined that the same is passed by the adjudicating authority in exercise of its administrative powers rather it has rightly been opined by the Tribunal that the exercise of powers by the Commissioner under Section 110A of the Act is quasi judicial in nature and so the order passed. The language of Section 110A(l)(a) of the Customs Act is quite wide in its application to take within its umbrella such an order passed, against which appeal would lie to the Tribunal. Restrictive meaning as is suggested by the Revenue cannot be given to the provisions. Power of judicial review in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India is altogether different and cannot be compared with a statutory right of appeal where the scope of interference is larger. The terms used in Section 129(l)(a) of the Customs Act are ‘decision’ or ‘orders’. Meaning thereby it is not limited to any final decision. Appeal dismissed.
|