K. NATARAJAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, wg dind that the appeal itself must be summarily disposed of. Accordingly, after allowing the application, which seeks early disposal of the appeal, we take up the appeal.

(2.) THE appeal is against an Order passed by learned Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 9(3) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. As rightly pointed out by learned Joint CDR, any appeal against such an Order would lie only to the Chief Commissioner of Customs in terms of Regulation 9(4) of the aforesaid Regulations. This provision reads as under:

(3.) AT this stage it is submitted by learned Counsel that the appellant was misguided by the preamble to the impugned order, which inter alia notes thus: Any person aggrieved by this Order can prefer an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Shastri Bhavan (Anenx), 26 Haddows Road, Chennai - 6. But we are not persuaded to think that a person aggrieved by an Order passed by a Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 9(3) should be guided exclusively by the preamble to such order, regardless of the relevant regulation, which governs the remedy against such order. However, it appears that the appellant has been pursuing a remedy before a wrong forum in a bonafide manner. In the circumstances, for the ends of justice, any appeal which they may file with the Chief Commissioner of Customs should not be defeated on the ground of limitation. We trust that, in case the appellant chooses to file an appeal with the Chief Commissioner, learned Chief Commissioner would take this aspect into earnest consideration while dealing with any application for condonation of delay.