The Delhi High Court has held that an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 remains maintainable even if an authorised courier has already pursued the remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010.
The bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain has observed that the CESTAT had relied upon its earlier decision in Pacific Express v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs, but clarified that the earlier case dealt with an entirely different issue—namely, the maintainability of an appeal against the order passed by the Chief Commissioner under Regulation 13(2), and not against the original adjudication order passed by the Commissioner under Regulation 13(1).
The appellant/assessee is an authorised courier operating under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010.
Buy Now: June 2026 Ultimate Legal & Taxation Combo
The dispute arose after the Commissioner of Customs passed an Order-in-Original dated May 13, 2024, whereby the appellant’s authorisation as an authorised courier was revoked; the security deposit was forfeited; and a penalty was imposed.
Aggrieved by the order, the appellant first exercised the remedy available under Regulation 13(2) by filing a representation before the Chief Commissioner. After the representation was rejected, the appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging the original order of the Commissioner.
However, the CESTAT dismissed the appeal, holding that since the Regulations already provided a remedy before the Chief Commissioner, a further appeal under Section 129A was not maintainable.
The principal question before the Delhi High Court was: Whether an authorised courier can file an appeal before the CESTAT under Section 129A of the Customs Act after already availing the remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner under the Courier Regulations?
The appellant argued that the statutory right of appeal under Section 129A cannot be taken away merely because the Regulations provide an additional remedy of representation.
Reliance was placed on the Bombay High Court’s decision in Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was held that the representation mechanism under the Courier Regulations does not substitute or extinguish the statutory appellate remedy provided by the Customs Act.
The Customs Department contended that once the appellant had already availed the representation remedy before the Chief Commissioner, no further appeal under Section 129A could be entertained.
According to the Department, permitting both remedies would amount to allowing multiple statutory challenges against the same order.
The Court observed that the Bombay High Court had already examined an identical situation where the authorised courier had first approached the Chief Commissioner and thereafter filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Even in that case, the Bombay High Court had categorically held that the availability or exercise of the representation remedy does not displace the statutory appeal provided under Section 129A.
The High Court emphasised that the Commissioner of Customs, while revoking the courier licence under Regulation 13(1), exercises statutory adjudicatory powers under the Customs Act.
Since Section 129A expressly provides an appeal against decisions or orders passed by the Commissioner acting as an adjudicating authority, the statutory remedy remains available irrespective of the representation mechanism created under the Regulations.
The Court held that the representation before the Chief Commissioner is merely an additional administrative remedy and cannot override or exclude the appellate jurisdiction expressly conferred by Parliament under the Customs Act.
Holding that the Tribunal had wrongly declined jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court set aside the CESTAT’s order dated January 15, 2026; held that the appeal under Section 129A was maintainable; and remanded the matter to the CESTAT for consideration on merits in accordance with law.
The Court also directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal on July 16, 2026.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
