KARACHI, Dec 14: A customs intelligence director cannot maintain an appeal on behalf of his department, a Sindh High Court division bench has declared.

Dismissing two appeals moved by the director, directorate- general of intelligence and investigation (customs and excise), Karachi, against an order of the customs, excise and sales tax appellate tribunal in limine, the bench, comprising Justices Shabbir Ahmed and Gulzar Ahmed, held that only a “collector” or a customs officer, specially and specifically authorized in this behalf, was competent to file an appeal on behalf of the department.

The abortive appeals assailed an order by the customs tribunal setting aside a demand for recovery of Rs 56.185 million from a footwear manufacturing concern. The concern had imported isocynate and polyol raw material from Thailand by allegedly underinvoicing on different dates. The value differential was worked out by the customs intelligence at Rs 56.185 million. The customs collector for adjudication passed an order against the importer, which was set aside by the appellate tribunal.

The director of customs intelligence and investigation preferred two appeals against the tribunal decision under Section 196 of the Customs Act. Appearing for the respondent importer, Dr Farogh Naseem questioned the very maintainability of the appeals due to the incompetence of the director to move an appeal.

Upholding the objection, the bench observed that an appeal against an order or decision of the tribunal under Section 196 can be moved either by an “aggrieved party”, which or who is to pay a court fee amounting to Rs 1000 or by the “collector”, who enjoys exemption from the fee. The right of appeal is not an inherent but a statutory right. There was little to show that the director of customs intelligence has been delegated the powers of “collector” to file an appeal.

The judgment said: “We are of the view that the expressions “aggrieved person” and “collector” used in Section 196 restrict the right of appeal. If it so desired, the legislature could have extended the right of appeal to customs officers, in general. The expression “aggrieved person” denotes a person who has got a legal grievance, that is, a person who is wrongfully deprived of anything which he is legally entitled to and not merely a person who suffers some sort of disappointment.

“In the instant case, the director might have been disappointed by failure of a proceeding initiated by him. But he has not suffered any personal injury. The word “aggrieved” refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal, pecuniary or property right, or the imposition of a burden or obligation. The director is neither an “aggrieved party” nor a “collector”. Resultantly, the appeals are not competently filed and are dismissed as not maintainable along with listed applications”.