1996 (6) TMI 244 - AT - Customs

Appeals dismissed for not following proper procedure; no substantial legal question for High Court.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, emphasizing that the appellants had not exercised their right to appeal before the Collector ... Reference to High Court Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal.2. Applicability of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Question of law for reference to the High Court.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Appeal Before the Tribunal:The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the applicants as not maintainable. The Tribunal upheld the preliminary objection raised by the department, noting that the appellants had not filed a separate appeal before the Collector (Appeals) as required by law. The company had filed an appeal on its behalf but did not include the appellants as parties or secure their authorization. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the company could not request the setting aside of penalties imposed on the appellants since they had not filed appeals on their own behalf. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants had waived their right to appeal by not filing within the statutory period and thus could not approach the second appellate forum directly.2. Applicability of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962:The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, which allows any person aggrieved by a decision or order passed by an officer of Customs lower in rank than a Collector of Customs to appeal to the Collector (Appeals) within three months. The Tribunal noted that the proceedings under Sections 111 and 112(a) of the Act are quasi-criminal and penal in nature. Since the appellants did not file appeals before the Collector (Appeals) and the company was not authorized to file on their behalf, the Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable. The Tribunal also clarified that the right of appeal is a procedural right, not a substantive one, and failure to exercise this right within the statutory period results in the confirmation of the order-in-original.3. Question of Law for Reference to the High Court:The appellants contended that the non-consideration of their appeals as being not maintainable was a question of law that should be referred to the High Court. However, the Tribunal found that no substantial question of law arose from the facts of the case. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, to support its view that the issue was one of fact rather than law. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' failure to file an appeal before the first appellate forum and their subsequent attempt to approach the Tribunal did not present a question of law requiring interpretation. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the reference applications, stating that the entire case was an appreciation of facts rather than a matter involving statutory interpretation.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, emphasizing that the appellants had not exercised their right to appeal before the Collector (Appeals) and thus could not directly approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal also concluded that no substantial question of law arose for reference to the High Court, as the issue was one of fact rather than law. The reference applications were therefore rejected.