Single Member

Contention on behalf of Collector Customs (appellant) was that jurisdiction of Single Member of Appellate Tribunal to hear an appeal was Rs.100,000 at the relevant time, whereas the valuation of seized goods exceeded Rs.500,000, therefore, Appellate Tribunal was not competent to have passed the impugned order

Contention on behalf of vehicle owner (respondent) was that Single Member of Appellate Tribunal was competent to hear appeals where valuation of smuggled items did not exceed Rs.500,000, and that his appeal was found competent by the Appellate Tribunal as valuation of seized goods was Rs.361,000

Validity

At the time of appeal in question Single Member of Appellate Tribunal was authorized to hear matters involving amounts up to Rs. 100,000 but this was subsequently amended to Rs.500,000

Amendment could not be given retrospective effect and a jurisdictional defect could not be rectified on the same basis

Valuation of smuggled goods collectively exceeded Rs.500,000

Single Member of Appellate Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter at the relevant time

Appellate Tribunal had set-aside the original order but the appellate order still occupied the field

Impugned order of Appellate Tribunal was set-aside and case was remanded to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with the law.