2025 (6) TMI 433 - HC - Customs

Supreme Court Clarifies Locus Standi: Non-Party Cannot Appeal Customs Proceedings Without Direct Legal Injury

The SC examined a case involving customs proceedings and locus standi. The Court held that a complainant who is not a party to original proceedings lacks ... Locus standi of appellant to file an appeal - appellant is not a party to the proceedings and he cannot be considered as an aggrieved person to file an appeal before the Tribunal - alleged forgery of shipping bills - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner herein is not a party to the original proceedings and he is not even a co-noticee. Admittedly, no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner in the original proceedings, namely, the order in original dated 28.08.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port - Import). The Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order has rightly held that merely because investigation was initiated on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, it cannot be considered that the petitioner is aggrieved by such an order and has come to the right conclusion that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the appeal. There is no infirmity in the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is also unable to point out to this Court as to what provisions under the Customs Act, the complaint was lodged against the second respondent. When the Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port - Import) in his order in original dated 28.08.2009, after giving due consideration to the findings of the investigation, passed an order letting off the second respondent (Customs House Agent) with severe warning and the petitioner, who is not a party to the said proceedings, the question of interfering with the order of the Appellate Tribunal by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not arise. There are no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:Whether the petitioner, who is not a party to the original proceedings before the Commissioner of Customs, has locus standi to file an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).Whether the initiation of investigation based on the petitioner's complaint confers upon the petitioner the status of an aggrieved person entitled to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.The appropriate legal remedy available to the petitioner if aggrieved by the order absolving the respondent from allegations of forgery.Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the Appellate Tribunal and if denial of such opportunity would vitiate the order.Whether the petitioner specified the relevant provisions of the Customs Act under which the complaint against the respondent was lodged, and the implications thereof.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Locus Standi of the Petitioner to File Appeal before CESTATThe legal framework governing appeals before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is that only an aggrieved person or party to the original proceedings can file an appeal. The Court referred to the principle that a person who is not adversely affected by an order passed by the original authority cannot be considered an aggrieved party to maintain an appeal. The Appellate Tribunal's reasoning was that the petitioner was neither a party nor a co-noticee in the original proceedings, and hence lacked locus standi.The Court noted that the petitioner did not suffer any adverse order; the Commissioner of Customs passed an order absolving the respondent with a severe warning. The petitioner's status was limited to that of a complainant who had initiated the investigation. The Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's interpretation that mere initiation of investigation based on a complaint does not confer the complainant the status of an aggrieved person. This principle aligns with established legal precedents that locus standi arises only when a person's legal rights or interests are adversely affected by an order.Consequently, the Court applied this legal principle to the facts and concluded that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the appeal before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on this ground was justified.2. Status of the Petitioner as an Aggrieved PersonThe Court examined the nature of the petitioner's involvement and the effect of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner was related to the persons managing the respondent's affairs and had a personal rivalry with them. The complaint lodged by the petitioner alleged forgery of shipping bills by the respondent, but did not specify the provisions of the Customs Act under which the complaint was made.The Court emphasized that the Customs Act is intended to prevent violations of its provisions and does not provide a remedy for personal disputes or rivalries. Since the order of the Commissioner absolved the respondent with a warning, it did not adversely affect the petitioner's legal rights or interests. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's grievance was essentially personal and did not translate into a legal grievance under the Customs Act.Therefore, the Court concurred with the Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person entitled to challenge the order, reinforcing the principle that only persons whose legal rights are infringed can be considered aggrieved.3. Appropriate Remedy for the PetitionerThe Court addressed the remedy available to the petitioner if dissatisfied with the order absolving the respondent. It held that since the petitioner was not a party to the Customs proceedings and the order did not adversely affect him, the appropriate course was to seek redressal through other legal channels.The Court suggested that the petitioner could lodge a criminal complaint for alleged forgery or file a civil suit for damages for defamation or injury to reputation. This aligns with the principle that administrative remedies under the Customs Act are not available to complainants who are not parties to the proceedings and whose grievances are personal in nature.The Court's treatment of this issue clarified the separation between administrative remedies under the Customs Act and other legal remedies available under criminal or civil law.4. Opportunity of Hearing before the Appellate TribunalThe petitioner contended that he was not given an opportunity to represent his case before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court considered this submission but found that even if such an opportunity were granted, the outcome would remain unchanged because the petitioner lacked locus standi.The Court reasoned that remanding the matter to the Tribunal for hearing would serve no useful purpose and accordingly rejected the request. This reflects the principle that procedural opportunities do not override substantive jurisdictional limitations such as locus standi.5. Non-specification of Relevant Customs Act Provisions in the ComplaintThe Court noted that the petitioner failed to specify under which provisions of the Customs Act the complaint against the respondent was lodged. This omission was significant because the Customs Act prescribes specific procedures and grounds for initiating complaints and proceedings.The Court observed that the Commissioner of Customs, after investigation, passed the order absolving the respondent with a severe warning, indicating that the complaint did not warrant further punitive action. The petitioner's failure to identify the statutory provisions undermined the validity of the complaint and the subsequent appeal.This factor reinforced the Court's conclusion that interference with the order of the Appellate Tribunal was unwarranted.Significant HoldingsThe Court held that 'merely because investigation was initiated on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, it cannot be considered that the petitioner is aggrieved by such an order and has come to the right conclusion that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the appeal.'It was established that a complainant who is not a party to the original proceedings and who has not been adversely affected by the order does not have the legal standing to challenge that order before the Appellate Tribunal.The Court also affirmed the principle that the Customs Act is designed to prevent violations of customs laws and does not provide a forum for personal disputes or rivalries to be litigated under its provisions.Finally, the Court concluded that 'if the petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the second respondent and its partners/representatives, he has to redress his grievance either by lodging a criminal complaint or through the Civil Court against them,' thereby delineating the proper legal avenues for such grievances.Accordingly, the writ petition challenging the Appellate Tribunal's order was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies.