Customs review machinery provision upheld where Additional Collector's adjudication did not defeat maintainability of application.

An Additional Collector was treated as included within the statutory expression "Collector of Customs", so a Board direction to the Collector to apply to the Tribunal did not make the Section 129D application incompetent. The provision was read with the Act's definition and overall scheme, and as a machinery provision intended to facilitate effective review of an adjudication order. A construction that would defeat that purpose was rejected, and the application was held maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 was maintainable when the Board directed the Collector of Customs to apply to the Tribunal in a matter adjudicated by an Additional Collector of Customs.

Analysis: The majority held that an Additional Collector is included within the expression "Collector of Customs" under the Act, and that Section 129D must be read with the statutory definition and the scheme of the provision. It concluded that the Board's direction to the Collector, in the circumstances of the case, did not render the application incompetent. The provision was treated as a machinery provision intended to enable effective review of an adjudication order, and a construction defeating that purpose was rejected.

Conclusion: The application under Section 129D was maintainable.

---