Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter XV — Appeals and Revision

Section 129D. Powers of Committee of Principal Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioners of Customs or Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs to pass certain orders

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Powers of Committee of Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs or ChiefCommissioner of Customs or Principal Commissioner ofCustoms or Commissioner of Customs to pass certain orders. —

(1) The Committee of Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs or ChiefCommissioner of Customs may, of its own motion, call for and examinethe record of any proceeding in which a PrincipalCommissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicatingauthority has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose ofsatisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or orderand may, by order, direct such Commissioner orany other Commissioner to apply to the Appellate Tribunal for thedetermination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may bespecified by the Committee of PrincipalChief Commissioners of Customs or Chief Commissioners of Customs in itsorder.* Provided that where the Committee of Principal Chief Commissioners of Customs or ChiefCommissioner of Customs differs in its opinion as to the legality or proprietyof the decision or order of the Principal Commissionerof Customs or Commissioner of Customs, it shall state the point or points onwhich it differs and make a reference to the Board which, after considering thefacts of the decision or order passed by the PrincipalCommissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, if is of the opinion thatthe decision or order passed by the PrincipalCommissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs is not legal or proper,may, by order, direct such Commissioner or any other Commissioner to apply tothe Appellate Tribunal for the determination of such points arising out of thedecision or order, as may be specified in its order.

(2) The Principal Commissioner of Customsor Commissioner of Customs may, of his own motion, call for and examine therecord of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority subordinate to himhas passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfyinghimself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may,by order, direct such authority or any officer ofCustoms subordinate to him to apply to the Commissioner (Appeals) for the determination of suchpoints arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner ofCustoms in his order.

(3) Every order under sub-section (1) orsub-section (2), as the case may be, shall be made within a period of threemonths from the date of communication of the decision or order of theadjudicating authority.

Provided that the Board may, on sufficient causebeing shown, extend the said period by another thirty days.

(4) Where in pursuance of an order under sub-section (1) orsub-section (2), the adjudicating authority or any officer of customsauthorised in this behalf by the PrincipalCommissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, makes an application tothe Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of one month from the date ofcommunication of the order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to theadjudicating authority, such application shall be heard by the AppellateTribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the casemay be, as if such application were an appeal made against the decision ororder of the adjudicating authority and the provisions of this Act regardingappeals, including the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 129A shall, sofar as may be, apply to such application.* (5)[Omitted]

Judgments on Section 129D

  • Mumbai Travel Retail Private Limited vs Mumbai-Air Cargo Import — CESTAT, 9 May 2025. A monetary penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for a wrong claim of exemption is a civil contravention, not a penalty 'for an offence under the Customs Act' within Regulation 3(2)(c) of the Special Warehouse…
  • M/S Global Technologies And Research vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs New… — Supreme Court of India, 15 Mar 2024. Where the Customs Act prescribes no limitation for the Committee of Commissioners to direct an appeal under Section 129A(2), its decision must still be taken within a reasonable time, and where earlier imports of…
  • Union Of India vs M/S Raj Grow Impex Llp — Supreme Court of India, 17 Jun 2021. Goods imported in contravention of import restrictions notified under the FTDR Act, 1992 are liable to absolute confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, and equity cannot aid importers who imported under the cover of…
  • J.M.Baxi And Co vs Government Of India — Madras High Court, 4 Dec 2019. A steamer or its agent cannot be held liable under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 merely because remission of customs duty was allowed to the importer under Section 23, and invocation of Section 116 long after 9…
  • Commissioner Of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs M/S Be Office Automation Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 4 Dec 2008. The presumption of unjust enrichment under Section 28D applies to second-hand goods as much as to new ones, and a bare Chartered Accountant's certificate unsupported by records cannot rebut it, while recovery of an…
  • Pp Products P Ltd vs Cc Sea Ch - Iv — CESTAT, 8 Sep 2026. A 4% SAD refund under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. cannot be rejected merely because sale invoices use a generic description instead of reproducing the grades in the Bills of Entry, absent positive evidence that the…
  • Veeresh Prasad General Manager… vs Commissioner Of Customs - Chennai Ii… — CESTAT, 8 Sep 2026. Interest on a levy under the Customs Tariff Act (such as the IGST under Section 3) can be demanded only if the legislature has specifically provided for it, so the substituted Section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act,…
  • Yamal Manojbhai Jagada vs Commissioner Of Customs Airport &… — CESTAT, 15 May 2026. Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 no condition can be imposed while offering redemption of confiscated goods — the owner may opt for home consumption on payment of duty, interest, fine and penalty, or for…
  • A.K. Impex vs Union Of India — Madras High Court, 13 Jul 1990. The order of a statutory functionary must stand or fall on the reasons disclosed in the order itself — its deficiency cannot be supplied by looking into departmental files — and an appeal or review under the Customs Act…