Special Bench jurisdiction under customs law depends on a direct assessment issue, not a merely incidental confiscation dispute.

An appeal involving confiscation of goods did not attract the Special Bench requirement because the governing test under the Customs Act is whether a direct and proximate question of rate of duty or valuation for assessment arises. Questions that are only remote or contingent do not satisfy that threshold. The statutory scheme treats such assessment-linked issues as special only when they arise directly in the appeal. On that basis, a confiscation order with an option to redeem on payment of fine, absent a direct assessment issue, falls outside Special Bench jurisdiction and may be heard by a single member.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal involving confiscation of goods, without any direct and proximate question relating to the rate of customs duty or valuation for assessment, was required to be heard by a Special Bench under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The governing test under Section 129C is whether the appeal raises a question having a direct and proximate relation, for the purposes of assessment, to the rate of duty or to the value of the goods. Matters that only remotely or contingently may give rise to assessment questions do not satisfy that test. The statutory scheme in Sections 129C, 130, 130E and 129D(5) treats such questions as special because of their wider application, but only where they arise directly in issue. A confiscation order with an option to redeem on payment of fine, without a direct assessment issue, does not fall within that category.

Conclusion: The appeal before CEGAT did not require adjudication by a Special Bench, and it was competent for a member sitting singly to hear and decide it. The appellant's contention was rejected.

---