Non-delegable filing of customs reference applications under Section 130(1) invalidates a reference filed by another officer.

A reference application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act had to be filed by the Commissioner himself, because the provision did not authorise delegation of that function to another officer. The Tribunal relied on the statutory contrast with Section 129A, which expressly permits filing of appeals, to hold that the absence of similar language in Section 130(1) made delegated filing invalid. Applying the analogous precedent under the Central Excise Act, it concluded that a reference signed and filed by the Assistant Commissioner pursuant to authorisation was not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act was maintainable when signed and filed by the Assistant Commissioner pursuant to authorisation by the Commissioner.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 130(1) did not confer power on the Commissioner to delegate the filing of a reference application to another officer. The contrast with Section 129A of the Customs Act, which expressly deals with filing of appeals, reinforced that the reference application had to be made by the Commissioner himself. The Tribunal also found the cited precedent on analogous reference provisions under the Central Excise Act applicable to the present facts.

Conclusion: The reference application filed through the Assistant Commissioner was not maintainable and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: A reference under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act must be filed by the Commissioner alone, and delegated filing by another officer is invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires a reference application to be filed by the Commissioner, such function is non-delegable in the absence of express statutory authority.

---