An Order passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs under courier regulations cannot be challenged before the tribunal

The Hon'ble CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Prime Express Courier & Cargo Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication Cell) - Delhi Zone, New Delhi - 2026 (7) TMI 363 - CESTAT NEW DELHI held that an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs under the Courier Regulations is not maintainable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasised that CESTAT is a creature of the statute and cannot expand its jurisdiction to hear appeals against authorities not specifically designated under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Facts:

• M/s Prime Express Courier & Cargo Pvt. Ltd ('The appellant') applied for courier registration and paid the security deposit under the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing Regulations, 2010('the regulation, 2010').
• The Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs, vide order dated 07.03.2024 ('impugned order'), restored the courier registration which was cancelled earlier but also ordered the forfeiture of the security deposit made at the time of registration and further imposed a penalty under the Regulation, 2010. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962('the Act').
• The Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Section 129A of the Act. The Department argued that orders passed by a Principal Chief Commissioner are not included in the sub-clauses of Section 129A, which specifically list the appealable adjudicating authorities.
• Whereas, the appellant relied on the order of the Tribunal Mumbai bench in Dipakkumar Dharamsinbhai Kakadiya, Dipak Trading Co, Kakadiya Savitaben Dharamshi and Kakadiya Brijeshkumar Vinodbhai Versus Chief Commissioner of Customs, Zone II, Nhava Sheva - 2025 (7) TMI 1015 - CESTAT MUMBAI, which held that the Principal Chief Commissioner is held to be an adjudicating authority in terms of Section 129A of the Customs Act, hence the appeal is maintainable.

Issues:

• Whether an order passed under the Regulations, 2010 can be challenged before the tribunal under Section 129A of the Act?

Held:

The Hon'ble CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in [Customs Appeal No. 52330 of 2024], held as under:

• Relied on Pacific Express Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs (DZ), New Delhi -  2025 (9) TMI 1064 - CESTAT NEW DELHI to observe that the appeal challenging the order of the Principal Chief Commissioner is not maintainable before this Tribunal. The bench relied on Express Handlings Worldwide Versus CC. (CSI., Airport), Mumbai - 2014 (2) TMI 116 - CESTAT MUMBAI to hold that there is no provision for filing an appeal under Regulation 2010.
• Also relied on M/s Navalai Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2026 (2) TMI 551 - CESTAT NEW DELHI, under which the principal tribunal observed that an appeal under 129A(1)(a) of the Act can only be filed if the decision has been taken under the provisions of the Customs Act, but not under the provisions of the Regulations, 2010.
• Rejected the Kakadiya (Supra) case to follow by holding that the said case is a single-member bench decision and thus is not binding. And also, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana judgment by relying on Kakadiya(Supra) is not binding, being a different jurisdictional authority.

Hence, the tribunal rejected the appeal.

Relevant Sections & Regulations:

Reg. 13(2) of the Regulation, 2010:

(2) Any Authorised Courier or the officer of the Customs authorised by the Chief Commissioner of Customs in this behalf, if aggrieved by the order of Commissioner of Customs passed under sub-regulation (1), may represent to the Chief Commissioner of Customs in writing against such order within sixty days of communication of the order to the Authorised Courier, and the Chief Commissioner of Customs shall, after providing the opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, dispose of the representation as expeditiously as may be possible.

Reg. 14. Of the Regulation, 2010: Penalty.

An Authorised Courier, who contravenes any of the provisions of these regulations or abets such contravention or who fails to comply with any provision of these regulations with which it was his obligation to comply, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.

Section 129A of the Act- Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.-

(1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order-

(a) a decision or order passed by the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] as an adjudicating authority;

(b) an order passed by the [Commissioner (Appeals)] under section 128A;

(c) an order passed by the Board or the Appellate 3[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 of Customs], either before or after the appointed day, under section 130, as it stood immediately before that day: