2003 (10) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t mutilation of goods for clearance covered under Bill of Entry No. 325280, dated 7-7-2003. 3.Heard, Mr. R. Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents. 4.After taking me through the order of the first respondent, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the first respondent failed to appreciate the question and erred in thinking that the request for mutilation was made by the petitioner for the first time on 27-9-2003, after the respondents have found it from their chemical examination report, dated 29-7-2003. In support of the said contention, he referred to the earlier correspondence between the petitioner and the seco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g their claim, rejected their request for release of the goods after mutilation. Section 2(1) of the Act defines "adjudicating authority". "'adjudicating authority' means any authority competent to pass any order or decision under this Act, but does not include the Board, Commissioner (Appeals) or Appellate Tribunal." 8.There is no dispute that the first respondent adjudicated the claim made by the petitioner and he is the adjudicating authority in terms of the above referred definition. It is also relevant to note Section 129A of the Act, which reads as under :- "Section 129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. - (1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order - a ....