Page 165 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] COMMR. OF CUS., (II) AIRPORT SPECIAL CARGO v. LYNX EXPRESS PVT. LTD. 699

against the Authorised Courier, the registration so suspended shall be re-
stored.
(2) Any Authorised Courier or the officer of the Customs authorised by
the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of
Customs in this behalf, if aggrieved by the order of Principal Commissioner
of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be passed under
sub-regulation (1), may represent to the Principal Chief Commissioner of
Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs as the case may be in writing
against such order within sixty days of communication of the impugned
order to the Authorised Courier and the Principal Chief Commissioner of
Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be shall, after
providing the opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, dispose
of the representation as expeditiously as may be possible.”
6. As regards the first two questions of law (i) and (ii) are concerned,
they seek to question the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal from
the Order-in-Original. It is the argument of the appellant that when appeal
against order of Chief Commissioner was withdrawn and no further remedy was
sought, an appeal before the Tribunal from the Order-in-Original could not have
been entertained. This submission cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has enter-
tained the appeal against the Order-in-Original relying on the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs v.
Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 52 (Bom.)]. In this case also an identi-
cal argument was advanced. The appellant in this case also had approached the
Tribunal after rejection of the representation. In the case of Principal Commissioner
of Customs v. Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd., objection was raised to the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal on the ground that there was merger of the order passed under rep-
resentation with the Order-in-Original and thereafter no appeal should have
been entertained by the Tribunal. This was rejected by the Tribunal and when the
appeal came up for consideration the Division Bench noted the argument and
observed thus :
“10. We do not think that we should entertain such an argument by the
Revenue and at this belated stage. The Tribunal has found that throughout,
the matter was contested on merits. Further, the issue of maintainability
was also dealt with at an earlier stage. The argument was once the Chief
Commissioner acted as an appellate authority, he would scrutinise the le-
gality and validity of the order-in-original, then, all the more against this
order, no appeal would lie.
11. We have found from a reading of the regulations that they are tracea-
ble to the power conferred in the authorities vide the Customs Act, 1962
and several notifications issued thereunder. The regulations apply for as-
sessment and clearance of goods carried by the authorised courier on in-
coming or outgoing flights or any other mode of transport. Thus, these are
the clearances through courier mode. For that purpose, the authorised cou-
rier can be engaged and the term “authorised courier” is defined in Regula-
tion 3 clause (a) of the regulations. Word “documents” is also defined in
Regulation 3(b). Then, by Regulation 4, packing of goods to be imported or
exported by courier is dealt with. Clearance of import goods is permissible
if the procedure set out in Regulation 5 is followed. Similar is the position
with regard to export goods and they can be cleared by Regulation 6. As far
as registration of authorised courier is concerned, that aspect is dealt with
by Regulation 8. There is scrutiny of applications by the Commissioner of
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  165