Case law

Bombay High Court · 3 Nov 2020

The Commissioner Of Customs (Ii) Zone… vs Poonma Courier Pvt. Limited

Legal principle

A remedy of representation provided by subordinate legislation (Regulation 14(2) of the Courier Regulations, 1998) is supplementary and cannot supplant or curtail the vested statutory right of appeal to CESTAT under section 129A of the parent enactment, and an aggrieved person cannot be non-suited in appeal for not availing it.

Court decision

The court held that CESTAT had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under section 129A despite non-availing of the Regulation 14(2) representation, answered the substantial question of law in the negative and against the appellant-Commissioner, and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

Facts

Poonam Courier Pvt. Ltd., a registered Authorized Courier under Regulation 10 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, was ordered deregistered under Regulation 14(1), its Rs.10,00,000 security forfeited, and a penalty of Rs.50,000 imposed under section 158(2)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Commissioner's order-in-original dated 05.04.2017 for failure to comply with bond conditions and violation of the Regulations. The courier initially moved the Principal Chief Commissioner with a representation under Regulation 14(2) but withdrew it and instead appealed to CESTAT under section 129A of the Customs Act. By order dated 10.04.2018 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the deregistration and its detrimental consequences. The Commissioner then appealed to the Bombay High Court under section 130 on the admitted substantial question whether CESTAT could entertain the appeal without the Regulation 14(2) remedy being exhausted.

Key provisions