Page 169 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI v. FREIGHT FIELD (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. 79

clear that, some specific orders as well as order passed by adjudicating author-
ity are appealable to CESTAT - Therefore present order may very well be ap-
pealed by aggrieved party - Though words “any Customs House Agent ag-
grieved by any decision or order” employed in Regulation 22(8) ibid no prohi-
bition specifically or expressly made prohibiting Revenue from preferring any
appeal against any order passed under sub-regulation 7 of Regulation 22 ibid -
Order impugned set aside and matter is remitted back to CESTAT for deciding
issue on merits - Substantial Question of Law raised answered in favour of
Revenue and against Licensee/Respondent - Section 129A of Customs Act,
1962. - In view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Karnataka High Court which we affirm
and agree and in view of the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that, no
party in an adjudication proceedings can be rendered remediless by way of appeal and if
any such contrary view is taken by Courts of law, that will be detrimental to the basic
structure as enshrined in our Constitution, i.e., Judicial review. [paras 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,
45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Aren Shipping Agents (P) Ltd. — 2016 (341) E.L.T. 586 (Mad.)
— Distinguished ................................................................................................................... [Paras 17, 39]
Cargomar v. Union of India — MANU/KA/0473/2018 — Followed ......................... [Paras 23, 43, 44, 46]
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Aparna Nandakumar, for the Appellant.
Shri S. Murugappan, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : R. Suresh Kumar, J.]. - This Appeal has been filed under
Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Final Order No. 41695/2018,
dated 31-5-2018 made in Appeal No. C/194/2012-DB by the Customs, Excise and
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai (in short
“CESTAT”).
2. The brief facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this
Appeal are as follows :
(i) That the respondent was a licensee under Customs House Agents
Licensing Regulations, 2004 (in short “CHALR, 2004”). Under the li-
cence, the respondent/licensee can handle clearing and forwarding
activities.
(ii) While so, on specific intelligence information, the Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence Officials (DRI) inspected the Shipping Bill No.
3245398, dated 26-8-2006 at the Chennai Air Cargo Complex filed by
the respondent/licensee on behalf of the Exporter M/s. India Lanka
General Impex, Chennai and the consignee M/s. Quick Cargo (HK)
Ltd.
(iii) On such inspection, the Revenue found that, though the goods de-
clared under the Shipping Bill was 22 sets of grinding stones and
milling stones together with rods contained in 24 stainless steel cyl-
inders of the grinder, on the detailed examination of the handles, it
was found that, the handle had a cavity which was plastered and on
removal of the plastered portion, a polythene bag containing white
powder was found concealed. In all 10.565 Kgs of white coloured
powder suspected to be “Ketamine Hydrochloride” were seized.
(iv) Thereafter the said white powder was tested in the Laboratory and
was declared that, it was “Ketamine Hydrochloride”, which was a
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  169