Appeal signed by authorised advocate upheld where appellant was outside India and vakalatnama accompanied the filing.

An appeal under Rule 3(2)(a) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 is validly signed when the appellant is outside India and the appeal is filed through a duly authorised advocate with a vakalatnama. The signature requirement is satisfied by a duly authorised person in the appellant's absence from India, so the appeal cannot be rejected as improperly filed merely because it bears the advocate's signature. The rejection as premature was therefore inconsistent with the rule, and the appeal was treated as properly filed for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal filed through an advocate was properly signed and validly presented under Rule 3(2)(a) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 when the appellant was stated to be outside India and a vakalatnama had been enclosed.

Analysis: Rule 3(2)(a) permitted an appeal to be signed by the individual concerned or by a duly authorised person in the individual's absence from India. Since the record indicated that the appellant was in Nigeria and the vakalatnama accompanied the appeal, the appeal could not be treated as improperly signed merely because it bore the advocate's signature. The rejection of the appeal as premature was therefore inconsistent with the governing rule.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to have been properly filed, and the order rejecting it was set aside so that the matter could be decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellant is absent from India and an advocate files the appeal on the basis of a valid vakalatnama, the appeal satisfies the signature requirement under Rule 3(2)(a) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 and cannot be rejected as improperly filed on that ground alone.

---