Appellate jurisdiction under customs law turns on the officer's capacity, not the designation printed on the order.

Appellate jurisdiction under the Customs Act depended on the officer's capacity when the adjudication order was passed, not merely on the designation printed below the signature. The majority found that the adjudicating officer was in fact functioning as Additional Collector, supported by the office order and the officer's own communication, so the order could not be treated as one made by a Deputy Collector because of an incorrect description. The statutory scheme treated the Collector as including the Additional Collector, and a departmental instruction could not alter the appellate forum or override the statute. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction and the appeal was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal and whether the impugned adjudication order, signed as made by the Deputy Collector, was in law an order of the Additional Collector so as to confer appellate jurisdiction on the Tribunal.

Analysis: The majority held that the relevant inquiry was the actual capacity in which the adjudicating officer was functioning at the time of passing the order, and that the officer had in fact been posted and was functioning as Additional Collector. The record, including the office order and the officer's own communication, showed that the designation shown below the signature as Deputy Collector was incorrect. The statutory scheme under the Customs Act treated the Collector to include the Additional Collector, and the departmental instruction could not validly convert an Additional Collector into a Deputy Collector or alter the appellate forum by a mere description in the order. The majority further held that the earlier decision on identical facts governed the matter and that the Board's instruction did not override the statute.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be maintainable before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it.

---