9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Importation of goods under specific import licenses. 2. Confiscation of goods by Customs Authorities. 3. Alternative remedy of appeal under Sea Customs Act. 4. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Analysis: 1. The case involved the importation of Cork Covers for jute mill machinery by a petitioner firm under specific import licenses granted by the Joint Chief Controller of Exports and Imports Calcutta. The Customs Authorities alleged that the imported goods could be used in banned machines, leading to confiscation under the Sea Customs Act. The petitioner argued that the goods were intended for Roll Former Machines, not excluded by the import licenses, and were meant for legitimate use in jute mill machinery. 2. The Collector of Customs for Appraisement confiscated the goods but provided an option to clear them on payment of a fine. The petitioner appealed to the Central Board of Revenue under the Sea Customs Act, which was pending. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the confiscation order and a writ of mandamus to prevent its enforcement. The Customs Authorities contended that the petitioner should exhaust the appeal remedy before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The High Court considered the precedents and legal principles regarding the availability of alternative remedies and the discretion of the Court to entertain applications under Article 226. The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that once an appeal has been filed and is being pursued, seeking parallel relief under Article 226 is not permissible. The Court highlighted that the existence of an alternative remedy does not automatically bar the High Court's jurisdiction but must be considered based on specific circumstances. 4. Citing relevant judgments, the High Court concluded that the petitioner, while actively pursuing the appeal under the Sea Customs Act, was not entitled to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution simultaneously. The Court emphasized that unless special circumstances exist, such as lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice, the availability of an alternative remedy should preclude the invocation of Article 226 jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petitioner's application, discharged the Rule, and vacated any interim orders, with no order as to costs. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the High Court of Calcutta underscores the legal intricacies surrounding importation, confiscation of goods, alternative remedies under the Sea Customs Act, and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
|
