Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals)
Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with appeals to Commissioner (Appeals). Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of customs lower in rank than a [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] may appeal to the [Commissioner (Appeals)] [within sixty days] from the date of the communication to him of such decision o The Act came into force on 01 Feb 1963.
1[128. Appeals to 2[Commissioner (Appeals)].--(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of customs lower in rank than a 3[Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] may appeal to the 2[Commissioner (Appeals)] 4[within sixty days] from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order:
5@[Provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days.]
6[(1A) The Commissioner (Appeals) may, if sufficient cause is shown at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal.]
(2) Every appeal under this section shall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be specified by rules made in this behalf.]
Section 128, The Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 1962).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 4
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Union of India vs Madras Bar Association
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Parliament has the power to enact legislation vesting adjudicatory functions previously exercised by High Courts with alternative tribunals, and exercise of such power does not per se violate basic structure of Constitution. However, when Parliament enacts legislation transferring core judicial functions to a tribunal, it must ensure that the newly created tribunal conforms with the salient characteristics and standards of the court sought to be substituted, including independence of adjudicators, security of tenure commensurate with judges of the replaced court, appointment procedures ensuring judicial independence, appointment of only legally qualified judges for deciding questions of law, and safeguards ensuring the tribunal is not subject to executive control or interference. Failure to maintain these standards violates the separation of powers and judicial review components of the basic structure of Constitution. The National Tax Tribunal Act 2005, by vesting in the tribunal the power to decide substantial questions of law while allowing non-judicial members, subjecting the tribunal to executive control, and depriving it of the independence characteristics of the High Court, violates these constitutional requirements and is therefore unconstitutional in its entirety.
On this section: Traced evolution of appellate remedy from customs appellate tribunal to High Court jurisdiction for questions of law
-
Union of India vs All Orissa Tax Bar Association
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, insofar as Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 13 are concerned, violates the basic structure of the Constitution by failing to ensure that a tribunal substituting High Court jurisdiction possesses the same standards, independence, security of tenure, and qualifications required for judges of the High Court. While Parliament has legislative competence to create tribunals and transfer appellate jurisdiction, such transfer must conform to recognized constitutional conventions derived from Westminster model constitutions and the principles of separation of powers, rule of law, and judicial independence which form part of the basic structure. Specific violations include: (1) locating tribunal sittings primarily in Delhi denies litigants accessibility; (2) vesting power over tribunal jurisdiction and member transfer with the Central Government (an interested party) compromises independence; (3) allowing non-legally qualified Accountant Members and Technical Members to decide substantial questions of law violates the requirement that tribunal members possess stature commensurate with High Court judges; (4) Selection Committee composition with government Secretaries violates principle that a party's opponent cannot select adjudicators; (5) five-year renewable terms encourage members to curry favor with government; (6) allowing Chartered Accountants and any authorized person to represent parties before a forum deciding only questions of law undermines the specialized nature of appellate adjudication. Consequently, the entire National Tax Tribunal Act is struck down as unconstitutional.
On this section: Appellate jurisdiction structure and transfer provisions; amendment substituting appeal to High Court for reference procedure
-
Union of India & ORS vs Sandeep Goyal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Parliament has power to transfer statutory appellate jurisdiction from High Courts to tribunals only when deciding on questions of fact or mixed questions where tribunal composition and conditions ensure it is no less efficacious than court replaced. However, Parliament cannot transfer power to decide substantial questions of law relating to diverse fields of law from superior courts to tribunals as this would violate separation of powers and basic structure of Constitution requiring judicial independence. Tribunals substituting superior courts must have members with judicial qualifications and tenure equivalent to High Court judges, appointed through process ensuring independence from executive, and must not have provisions for reappointment or retention of lien with government.
On this section: Appeal and reference provisions to High Courts historically analyzed
-
Union of India vs P. C. Joshi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Parliament has the power to enact legislation vesting appellate jurisdiction previously exercised by High Courts in alternative adjudicatory mechanisms (including tribunals) for specific subject matters. However, such transfer is subject to the constitutional limitation that the newly created court/tribunal must conform to the salient characteristics, standards, and safeguards of the court being replaced - particularly regarding judicial independence, security of tenure, appointment procedures requiring judicial involvement, and adequate qualifications. Where the jurisdiction being transferred relates to deciding substantial questions of law (which is a core and constitutional function of superior courts), the substituting forum cannot be a tribunal lacking requisite legal qualifications and judicial independence safeguards. The National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, by vesting appellate jurisdiction to decide substantial questions of law relating to taxation in a tribunal lacking judicial composition, constitutional safeguards for member independence, properly constituted appointment process, and proper qualifications requirements, violates the basic structure doctrine by impairing the separation of powers principle and the core constitutional function of judicial review vested in High Courts. Therefore, the Act is unconstitutional and void.
On this section: Evolution of appellate remedy and references on questions of law before High Courts
-
Chandra Sekhar Jha vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When A Statutory Provision Is Substituted By A New Provision, The Old Provision Is Completely Repealed And Replaced. An Appellant Cannot Selectively Benefit From The Favorable Aspects Of The Old Regime (Discretionary Waiver Of Pre-Deposit) While Being Subject To The New Regime's Requirements (Mandatory 7.5% Deposit). The Applicability Of The New Section 129E Is Determined By The Date Of Filing The Appeal And The Date Of The Order Being Appealed Against, Not By The Date Of The Underlying Incident. The Legislative Intent Behind The Amendment Was To Reduce The Pre-Deposit Burden While Removing Discretionary Waiver Power, And This Intent Must Be Respected.
On this section: Referenced In The New Section 129E As One Of The Provisions Under Which Appeals Must Comply With Pre-Deposit Requirements
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Also, Section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act dealt with the filing of a revision petition after a first appeal had already been rejected, and not to a case of a first appeal as provided under Section 128 of the Customs Act. Another feature, which is of direct relevance in this case, is that for revision petitions filed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act a sufficiently long period of 18 months had been given beyond which it was the policy of the legislature not to extend limitation any further. This aspect of Parson …
-
… Also, Section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act dealt with the filing of a revision petition after a first appeal had already been rejected, and not to a case of a first appeal as provided under Section 128 of the Customs Act. Another feature, which is of direct relevance in this case, is that for revision petitions filed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act a sufficiently long period of 18 months had been given beyond which it was the policy of the legislature not to extend limitation any further. This aspect of Parson …
-
… Also, Section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act dealt with the filing of a revision petition after a first appeal had already been rejected, and not to a case of a first appeal as provided under Section 128 of the Customs Act. Another feature, which is of direct relevance in this case, is that for revision petitions filed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act a sufficiently long period of 18 months had been given beyond which it was the policy of the legislature not to extend limitation any further. This aspect of Parson …
Made under this section, and citing it
3 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 128
What have the courts held on Section 128 of the Customs Act?
Union of India vs Madras Bar Association (26 Sep 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Traced evolution of appellate remedy from customs appellate tribunal to High Court jurisdiction for questions of law. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2014 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 128 of the Customs Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Customs Act 1962 128, section 128 Customs Act 1962, section 128 of the Customs Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Union of India vs Madras Bar Association (26 Sep 2014).
What should I read with Section 128 of the Customs Act, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 3 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently Clarification regarding handling of cargo in customs areas Regulations, 2009.- Circular No.54/2011-Customs, dated 29.12.11 (2011), then Customs (Publication of names) Rules, 1975 (1975).
When did Section 128 of the Customs Act come into force?
Section 128 of the Customs Act, cited as Customs Act 1962 128, came into force on 01 Feb 1963, having been enacted on 13 Dec 1962. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 28. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded2145 words
- 2. Definitions1638 words
- 129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal1170 words
- 27. Claim for refund of duty1060 words
- 127C. Procedure on receipt of an application under section 127B1056 words
- 138C. Admissibility of micro films, facsimile copies of documents and computer print outs as documents and as evidence872 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.