Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 195 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - appeal was entertained without the party/appellant before it exhausting its remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner under Regulation 14(2) of the Regulation - Regulation 14(1) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 - HELD THAT:- The Regulations had been made by the then Central Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of the powers conferred by section 157 read with section 84 of the Customs Act. Section 157 deals with the general power to make regulations. The erstwhile Central Board of Excise and Customs and now after amendment, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has been conferred the power to make regulations consistent with the Customs Act. Likewise, the Board has been conferred the power to make regulations regarding goods imported or to be exported by post or courier under section 84. Evidently, it is a subordinate piece of legislation - While Regulation 14(1) empowers the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs to revoke the registration of an authorized courier and also order for forfeiture of security; Regulation 14(2) provides for an opportunity to the aggrieved courier or an authorised officer of customs to represent before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs if aggrieved by an order passed under Regulation 14(1). Thus, the remedy provided under Regulation 14(2) is by way of a representation to the higher authority. Remedy of appeal to the CESTAT is provided under section 129A of the Customs Act i.e., by the parent enactment. This right of appeal is a substantive right of an aggrieved person. It is not a matter of procedure but is a vested right conferred by the statute. Being a statutory right, it can only be circumscribed by the conditions of the statute granting it. On the other hand, an additional remedy of making representation to the higher authority is provided under Regulation 14(2) of the Regulations, which as we have noted is a subordinate legislation. Such a remedy cannot supplant or curtail the remedy of appeal granted by the empowering statute; at best it can be construed as a supplementary remedy. For non-availing of the additional or supplementary remedy provided by the subordinate legislation, an aggrieved person cannot be non-suited in appeal, a statutory remedy provided by the parent enactment. The substantial question of law is answered in the negative and against the appellant - Appeal dismissed.
|