Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter XV — Appeals and Revision

Section 129. Appellate Tribunal

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Appellate Tribunal. —

(1) The Central Government shall constitute an Appellate Tribunal to be called the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal consisting of as many judicial and technical members as it thinks fit to exercise the powers and discharge the functions conferred on the Appellate Tribunal by this Act.

(2) A judicial member shall be a person who has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India or who has been a member of the Indian Legal Service and has held a post in Grade I of that service or any equivalent or higher post for at least three years, or who has been an advocate for at least ten years.

Explanation. — For the purposes of this sub-section, -

(i) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India, there shall be included any period, after he has held any judicial office, during which the person has been an advocate or has held the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law;

(ii) in computing the period during which a person has been an advocate, there shall be included any period during which the person has held a judicial office, or the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law after he became an advocate.

(2A) A technical member shall be a person who has been a member of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service, Group A, and has held the post of Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or Central Excise or any equivalent or higher post for at least three years.

(3) The Central Government shall appoint -

(a) a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court; or

(b) one of the members of the Appellate Tribunal, to be the President thereof.

(4) The Central Government may appoint one or more members of the Appellate Tribunal to be the Vice-President, or, as the case may be, Vice-Presidents, thereof.

(4A)[Omitted]

(5) A Vice-President shall exercise such of the powers and perform such of the functions of the President as may be delegated to him by the President by a general or special order in writing.

(6) On ceasing to hold office, the President, Vice-President or other Member shall not be entitled to appear, act or plead before the Appellate Tribunal.

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and the other terms and conditions of service of the President, Vice-President or other Members of the Appellate Tribunal appointed after the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017,shall be governed by the provisions of section 184 of that Act:

Provided that the President. Vice-President and Member appointed before the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder as if the provisions of section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 had not come into force.

Judgments on Section 129

  • Vicky Ramchand Asrani vs Mumbai-Air Port — CESTAT, 19 Dec 2024. Illicit import of gold must be deterred, but not by alienation of possession from its owner — where goods are merely restricted and not truly prohibited, absolute confiscation under section 125 fails and the owner is…
  • 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…
  • 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…
  • M/S Saudi Arabian Airlines vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 1 Sep 2026. Imposition of penalty under Section 38 of the Finance Act, 1979 is discretionary and not automatic upon breach, and no litigant can be placed in a worse position (no reformatio in peius) as a result of filing an appeal.
  • Shri.K.Ananthapadmanabha Rao vs The Commissioner Of Central Taxes — Karnataka High Court, 27 Apr 2026. An order of dismissal passed without granting a specifically requested personal hearing—despite pending parallel criminal discharge and customs appellate proceedings—violates the principles of natural justice, and such…
  • Kakdiya Savitaben Dharamshi vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs Zone Ii… — CESTAT, 15 Jul 2025. A compounding application under Section 137(3) of the Customs Act may be filed at any stage — even before show cause notice or adjudication — and the Compounding Authority, being an 'adjudicating authority', must decide…
  • Titagarh Wagons Limited vs -Patna(Prev) — CESTAT, 20 Nov 2024. An appeal to CESTAT against an order relating to payment of duty drawback is barred by proviso clause (c) to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962; the remedy lies in a revision under Section 129DD before the Central…
  • Commissioner Of Customs, Ahmedabad vs Baroda Rayons Corporation Ltd — Gujarat High Court, 2 Jan 2023. If recourse to a Board circular, read in isolation, would have the effect of nullifying an adjudication confirming duty that has attained finality, such interpretation is necessarily bad in law.
  • The Commissioner Of Customs vs The Customs — Madras High Court, 1 Nov 2022. Where goods are imported at a concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods, the Central Excise officer is competent under Rule 8 of the 1996 Rules to verify end-use and recover the duty differential with…
  • The Daily Thanthi vs Commissioner Of Customs (Appeals) — Madras High Court, 25 Jan 2021. Amounts deposited 'under protest' at the appellate stage, in the nature of a pre-deposit under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962, must be refunded without invoking the unjust enrichment bar or limitation of Section…
  • The Commissioner Of Customs (Ii) Zone… vs Poonma Courier Pvt. Limited — Bombay High Court, 3 Nov 2020. 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…
  • Al Amin Exports vs Commssioner Of Central Excise… .Opponent — Gujarat High Court, 27 Jan 2014. A mere assertion that the appeal has an excellent case on merits, without pleading and proving undue hardship, does not justify complete waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E, as an arguable point in appeal is not…
  • M/S.Medopharm vs The Joint Secretary To The — Madras High Court, 27 Apr 2012. Drawback under Section 74 for re-export of imported goods is admissible only where the shipping bill is filed under Section 74 declaring the re-export, so that customs can verify the identity and eligibility of the…
  • Automotive Tyre Manufactureres Assn vs The Designated Authority & Ors — Supreme Court of India, 7 Jan 2011. Where the prescribed procedure (Rule 6(6) of the 1995 Anti-dumping Rules) requires a personal hearing, final findings recorded by a Designated Authority who never heard the interested parties violate audi alteram partem…
  • V K Aggarwal vs Union Of India And Another — Delhi High Court, 13 Apr 2009. Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962 validly and constitutionally bars every former President, Vice-President or Member of CESTAT from appearing, acting or pleading before that Tribunal — whether as a legal…
  • Hi-Tech Engineers vs Union Of India (Uoi) — Bombay High Court, 28 Jul 2003. Where duty-free clearance of warehoused goods under Section 90 is obtained by misdeclaration, the clearance becomes an improper removal and, once the assessment is set aside and duty is found payable, Section 72 read…