2007 (12) TMI 367 - AT - Customs

CESTAT Upholds Confiscation, Emphasizes Timely Decisions

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA, held that delay in filing the appeal was due to the Committee of Commissioners not making a timely decision. The ... Appeal by Department - Time Limitation - Condonation of Delay in filing appeal - Held that: - there is no delay in processing of the appeal papers and filing the same but there is a delay in the Committee of Commissioners calling for and examining the impugned order and authorizing filing of the appeal against the same. Since the time limit of three months has been prescribed under Section 129A(3) for filing the appeal, it is incumbent on the Committee of Commissioners to form its opinion under Section 129A(2) well before the time limit of three months. In this case, the Committee itself has formed the opinion after a lapse of the appeal period of three months. Such a delay on the part of the Committee of Commissioners, cannot be condoned, which in fact is the reason for late filing of the appeal - appeal dismissed. Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, confiscation of goods, authority of Committee of Commissioners, review procedure for timely filing of appeals.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA, the issue of delay in filing the appeal was considered. The appeal was filed just one day after the Committee of Commissioners authorized it, but the Committee itself formed its opinion after the prescribed three-month time limit. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by the Committee to avoid such delays in the future. The delay by the Committee was deemed as the reason for the late filing of the appeal, and it was held that such delay cannot be condoned.Regarding the confiscation of goods, the lower appellate authority upheld the confiscation of foreign origin goods and the truck, but set aside the confiscation of jute bags and a small penalty. The Tribunal found that since the lower authority had upheld the confiscation of major items and only set aside a minor penalty, there was no need for intervention by the Tribunal on the merits of the case. The nature of the dispute and the small amount involved were also considered in this decision.Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the need for the Committee of Commissioners to establish a procedure for periodic and prompt review of orders-in-appeal to ensure timely decision-making and avoid delays in filing appeals. The rejection of the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay led to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, emphasizing the finality of the decision made by the Tribunal in this case.