1983 (9) TMI 309 - AT - Customs

Appeal rejected on warning by Addl. Collector for re-export deemed non-appealable

The appeal challenging the warning issued by the Addl. Collector regarding the re-export of goods was deemed incompetent and rejected by the Tribunal. The ... - Issues:1. Validity of warning administered by the Addl. Collector regarding re-export of goods.2. Maintainability of the appeal against the warning administered by the Addl. Collector.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the warning issued by the Addl. Collector regarding the re-export of goods from a private bonded warehouse. The appellants were granted a license for storage and re-export of various spirits. The warning was issued after the appellants attempted to re-export Johnnie Walker Red Label Scotch Whisky to Sharjah. The Customs authorities initially objected but later allowed the shipment on a warning. The Addl. Collector informed the appellants that re-export of goods was not permissible under their license, except in very special cases. The appellants contended that the warning was unauthorized and illegal, seeking to set it aside.2. The preliminary objection raised during the appeal questioned the maintainability of the appeal against the warning. The contention was that appeals to the Appellate Tribunal are only applicable against decisions or orders passed by the Collector of Customs in an adjudicating capacity where penalties or fines are imposed. The interpretation of the term 'adjudicating authority' was debated, with the appellant arguing that the Collector's warning constituted a decision or order under the Customs Act. The Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection, emphasizing that the Collector's warning was an administrative or executive action, not a quasi-judicial decision. The Tribunal cited a case where a Trade Notice was considered an administrative direction, not subject to appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the warning administered by the Addl. Collector was an executive direction and not a decision or order under the Customs Act. As such, the warning did not fall within the scope of appealable orders to the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was deemed incompetent and rejected.