Moheb Ali M., Member (T) - (1.)THIS appeal arises out of the order of Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication). In the impugned order the Commissioner Confiscated the seized car under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. 1962 as the real owner and real importer has not come forward to claim the car. He also imposed a penalty of Rs.50.000/- under Section 112 on one Shri Mohammed Aslam Kapadia.
(2.)The DRI who originally investigated the case verified whether the Present appeal was filed by Shri M A Kapadia. The DRI got the signature of the appellant in the stay application verified with the signature of Kapadia available in their record. It was found by the Examiner of Questioned Documents. directorate of Forensic Sciences. (Ministry of Home Affairs). government of India. Hyderabad. That the signature of the applicant in the stay application does not tally with the one available on record. One Shri V K Tolani. Intelligence Officer working in the DRI who investigated the case filed an affidavit to this effect. We have perused the Affidavit and the opinion given by the examiner of questioned document. When the matter was called none were present from the appellant side. On the last occasion the matter was adjourned as the Bench could not take up the appeal. On earlier occasions the matter was adjourned twice.
As per Section 128 of the Customs Act an aggrieved person can file an appeal with the Tribunal against the order either of Commissioner of customs or Commissioner (Appeals). In the present case it is evident that the person who has filed the appeal is different from the one against whom the Commissioner of Customs has passed an order. The DRI's contention that the signature of the appellant is different from the person against whom an order is passed goes uncontroverted. In the absence of any defence from the appellant, accept the contention of the DRI officer in the form of an Affidavit that Shri M.A. Kapadia is not the person who filed the appeal. It needs no mention that only an aggrieved person can file an appeal. We therefore reject the appeal as not maintainable. the appeal is accordingly dismissed.