Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter XV — Appeals and Revision
Section 129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal
Customs Act, 1962
Bare Act
Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. —
(1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to theAppellate Tribunal against such order -
(a) a decision or order passed by the PrincipalCommissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicatingauthority;
(b) an order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) under section 128A;
(c) an order passed by the Board or the Appellate Commissioner of Customs under Section 128, as it stood immediately before the appointed day;
(d) an order passed by the Board or the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner ofCustoms, either before or after the appointed day, under section 130, as itstood immediately before that day:
Provided that no appeal shall lie to theAppellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction todecide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) if suchorder relates to, -
(a) any goods imported or exported as baggage;
(b) any goods loaded in a conveyance for importation into India, butwhich are not unloaded at their place of destination in India, or so much ofthe quantity of such goods as has not been unloaded at any such destination ifgoods unloaded at such destination are short of the quantity required to beunloaded at that destination;
(c) payment of drawback as provided in Chapter X, and the rules madethereunder:
Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, refuse toadmit an appeal in respect of an order referred to in clause (b) or clause (c)or clause (d) where -
(i) the value of the goods confiscated without option having beengiven to the owner of the goods to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation under section 125; or
(ii) in any disputed case, other than a case where thedetermination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customsor to the value of goods for purposes of assessment is in issue or is one ofthe points in issue, the difference in duty involved or the duty involved; or
(iii) the amount of fine or penalty determined by such order, does not exceed two lakh rupees.
(1A) Every appeal against any order of thenature referred to in the first proviso to sub-section (1), which is pending immediatelybefore the commencement of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1984, before theAppellate Tribunal and any matter arising out of or connected with such appealand which is so pending shall stand transferred on such commencement to theCentral Government and the Central Government shall deal with such appeal ormatter under section 129DD as if such appeal or matter were an application or amatter arising out of an application made to it under that section.
(1B) (i) The Board may, byorder, constitute such Committees as may be necessary for the purposes of thisAct.
(ii) Every Committee constituted under clause (i) shall consist oftwo Chief Commissioners of Customs or two Commissioners of Customs, as the casemay be.
(2) The Committee of Commissioners of Customs may, ifit is of opinion that an order passed by the Appellate Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner ofCustoms under section 128, as it stood immediately before the appointed day,or by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128A,is not legal or proper, direct the proper officer to appeal on its behalf to the Appellate Tribunal against suchorder:
Provided that where the Committee of Principal Commissioners of Customs or Commissionersof Customs differs in its opinion regarding the appeal against the order ofthe Commissioner (Appeals), it shall state the point or points on which itdiffers and make a reference to the jurisdictional Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs or ChiefCommissioner of Customs who shall, after considering the facts of the order,if is of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is notlegal or proper, direct the proper officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunalagainst such order.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section,"jurisdictional ChiefCommissioner" means the Principal ChiefCommissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs having jurisdictionover the adjudicating authority in the matter.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be filed within threemonths from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against iscommunicated to the Principal Commissioner of Customsor Commissioner of Customs, or as the case may be, the other party preferringthe appeal.
(4) On receipt of notice that an appeal has been preferred underthis section, the party against whom the appeal has been preferred may,notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any partthereof, file, within forty-five days of the receipt of the notice, amemorandum of cross-objections verified in such manner as may be specified byrules made in this behalf against any part of the order appealed against andsuch memorandum shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were anappeal presented within the time specified in sub-section (3).
(5) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit thefiling of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevantperiod referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfiedthat there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.
(6) An appeal to the Appellate Tribunalshall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be specifiedby rules made in this behalf and shall, irrespective of the date of demand ofduty and interest or of levy of penalty in relation to which the appeal ismade, be accompanied by a fee of, -
(a) where the amount of duty and interest demanded and penaltylevied by any officer of customs in the case to which the appeal relates isfive lakh rupees or less, one thousand rupees;
(b) where the amount of duty and interest demanded and penaltylevied by any officer of customs in the case to which the appeal relates ismore than five lakh rupees but not exceeding fifty lakh rupees, five thousandrupees;
(c) where the amount of duty and interest demanded and penaltylevied by any officer of customs in the case to which the appeal relates ismore than fifty lakh rupees, ten thousand rupees:
Provided that no such fee shall be payable in the case of an appealreferred to in sub-section (2) or a memorandum of cross-objections referred toin sub-section (4).
(7) Every application made before the Appellate Tribunal, -
(a) in an appeal [Omitted] for rectification of mistake or for any other purpose; or
(b) for restoration of an appeal or an application, shall be accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees:
Provided that no such fee shall be payable in the case of an application filedby or on behalf of the Principal Commissioner ofCustoms or Commissioner of Customs under this sub-section.
Judgments on Section 129A
- S.Michael Kennadi vs The Revision Authority — Madras High Court, 1 Oct 2026. Revision to the Central Government under Section 129DD lies only for the three kinds of cases listed in the first proviso to Section 129A(1): baggage, goods not unloaded at their destination, and drawback.
- Commissioner Of Customs -Commissioner… vs Home Designers And Fabricators Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 26 Mar 2026. Where imported goods violate import policy or regulatory conditions but are not absolutely prohibited, confiscation under Section 111(d) may be upheld, but absolute confiscation is unsustainable and the adjudicating…
- Mr. R. K. Digital Solutions vs Hyderabad - G S T — CESTAT, 28 Nov 2025. A notification or Explanation that changes or widens the scope of the main provision operates only prospectively and cannot apply to imports made before its date, and where no restriction existed on the date of import,…
- 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…
- 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…
- Yash Pakka Limited vs Lucknow Prev — CESTAT, 14 Feb 2024. Under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, a shipping bill may be amended or converted even after export if supported by documentary evidence in existence at the time of export, and a circular's self-imposed time limit…
- 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…
- 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…
- 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…
- Ms Yash Pakka Limited vs C.C. Lucknow — CESTAT, 23 Aug 2023. A request under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for conversion of free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills cannot be rejected without affording the exporter an opportunity of hearing — an order passed…
- 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…
- Aramex India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 16 Sep 2016. A courier licence cannot be revoked for the fraudulent acts of employees committed on their own for personal gain outside the scope of employment where the company itself was not complicit, as revocation in such…
- J.M. Ramachandra & Sons vs Customs Excise And Gold (Control)… — Delhi High Court, 26 Sep 2001. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties but only to prevent dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay must receive a liberal, justice-oriented construction; an order…