|
67. Amendment of section 129D. |
|
|
In section 129D of the Customs Act,—
(i) in sub-section (1), the following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely:—
"Provided that where the Committee of Chief Commissioners of Customs differs in its opinion as to the legality or propriety of the decision or order of the Commissioner of Customs, it shall state the point or points on which it differs and make a reference to the Board which, after considering the facts of the decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, if is of the opinion that the decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs is not legal or proper, may, by order, direct such Commissioner or any other Commissioner to apply to the Appellate Tribunal for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order, as may be specified in its order.";
(ii) for sub-section (3), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:—
"(3) Every order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority.".
Clause 67 seeks to amend section 129D of the Customs Act with a view to,—
(i) insert a proviso to sub-section (1) so as to provide that in case of the Committee of Chief Commissioners of Customs differs in its opinion about the legality or propriety of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority, it shall refer the matter to the Board which shall consider the facts of the case and the difference between them and if it is of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner is not legal or proper, direct the Commissioner or any other Commissioner to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order.
(ii) substitute sub-section (3) to provide that every order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 129D of the Act shall be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the decision or the order of the adjudicating authority. The proposed amendment is of consequential nature in view of amendment of sub-section (1) of section 129D of the said Act.
|
|
|
Case Look ups