Legal principle

Against a Commissioner of Customs' order passed under sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, the only remedy is a written representation to the Chief Commissioner of Customs within sixty days, and the CESTAT has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against such an order.

Court decision

The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal: under Regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, the remedy against a Commissioner's order under sub-regulation (1) is a written representation to the Chief Commissioner of Customs within sixty days, which the Department ought to have pursued. The appeal filed by the Department was accordingly dismissed, in favour of the respondent courier, without deciding the merits of revocation.

Facts

The respondent, M/s Total Courier & Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd., is a registered authorized courier licensed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Air Cargo), Chennai. On a Show Cause Notice alleging violation of Regulation 3(a) read with Regulation 13(j) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (the extract does not describe any specific goods), the Original Authority, after due process, ordered forfeiture of Rs. 2 lakhs, being the security deposit, under Regulation 14(1) of the said Regulations. The Department appealed to the Tribunal on the sole ground that the Adjudicating Authority had not revoked the registration of the authorized courier.

Key provisions

• Regulation 14, Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 — Deregistration
• Regulation 13(j), Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 — Obligations of Authorised Courier
• Regulation 3(a), Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 — Definitions