M. RAMACHANDRAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of these applications is for condonation of the delay of 6 days involved in the filing of the appeal. This application is on a medical ground, which is supported by a Medical Certificate. The delay is condoned. The second application before me seeks waiver of predeposit of an amount of duty of Rs. 2,16,390. This application, however, does not say that any demand of such duty has been raised on them. On a perusal of the records, I find that no duty has been demanded from the appellants. The application for waiver of predeposit is, therefore, dismissed.

(2.) The appeal itself required to be finally disposed of at this stage. The appellant is a CHA, who had dealt with certain goods imported by M/s. P.K. Maniammal Textiles (P) Ltd., Mylapore, Chennai -4. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs had affirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 2,16,390 on the said company in respect of the imported goods. A copy of the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner against the said company was forwarded to the present appellant qua CHA. This was to inform the appellant that, if the importer did not pay up the duty, the same would be liable to be recovered from the CHA under Section 142 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Commissioner (Appeals), but the latter rejected the appeal as premature. The operative part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is extracted below:

(3.) Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel submits that the department has no authority under Section 142 of the Customs Act to demand from the CHA any amount of duty which was liable to be paid by the importer of the goods in question. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has virtually held the CHA liable to be proceeded against under Section 142. This, according to Ld. Counsel, is a matter of grievance for the appellant and, therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is liable to be set aside. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submits that, as noted in the impugned order, no action has actually been initiated against the CHA under Section 142 and, therefore, the appellant can have no grievance. He has pointed out that, if at all, any one should be aggrieved by the above observations of the Commissioner (Appeals), that should be the department, but the department has not chosen to prefer any appeal against the said order. In any case, according to DR, the present appeal is liable to be rejected for want of cause of action.