Curable defect in appeal signature cannot justify outright dismissal without opportunity to rectify and proceed on merits.

Rule 3 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 specifies who may sign an appeal and the prescribed filing form, but a memorandum signed by a Custom House Agent rather than the authorised person was treated as a procedural defect capable of cure. Dismissing the appeals outright without first pointing out the defect and allowing rectification was therefore unjustified. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to treat the irregularity as curable and decide the appeals on merits after permitting correction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground that the memorandum of appeal was signed by a Custom House Agent instead of the person authorised under Rule 3 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982.

Analysis: Rule 3 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 prescribes the persons competent to sign an appeal and the form in which the appeal is to be filed. The defect noticed was procedural in nature and was capable of being corrected. Dismissal of the appeal straightaway without first pointing out the defect and granting an opportunity to cure it was held to be unjustified.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeals on this ground was not sustainable. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to treat the defect as curable and to permit rectification before deciding the appeals on merits.

---