2016 (6) TMI 751 - HC - Customs

Claim of exemption on import of Uninterrupted Power Supply System 200 KVA Delphys Green Power C6 with Cardboard/Pallet Packing - Notification No.25/2005 dated 01.03.2005 which provides for exemption of Basic Customs Duty for import of Static Converters for automatic data processing machines and units thereof and telecommunication apparatus - Maintainability of writ petition - Alternative appellate remedy. Held that - the right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the appellant company was wholly misconceived and the same is not maintainable. Therefore the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable in the light of the appeal remedy under Section 129-A of the Act - Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 without exhausting alternative remedy u/s.129-A of the Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
1. The appellant company, engaged in the sale and installation of imported Uninterrupted Power Supply Systems (UPS), imported a UPS System under Customs Chapter Heading 85 04 40 90. Claiming exemption under Customs Notification No.25/2005 dated 01.03.2005, the appellant faced rejection of exemption claim by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, despite furnishing orders granting similar exemptions in the past.

2. The appellant initially filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the rejection of exemption claim. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, directing the appellant to pursue the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority. Subsequently, the appellant filed multiple appeals challenging assessments, which were rejected by the first respondent/Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), Chennai.

3. Aggrieved by the rejection, the appellant filed another Writ Petition seeking to quash the order in Appeal C-Cus No.468-547/2013 dated 28.3.2013. The appellant argued that the issue was covered by previous department orders granting exemption for UPS, which were not considered by the appellate authority in the present case.

4. The core issue in the Writ Appeal was the maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 without exhausting the alternative remedy u/s.129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that the Writ Petition was maintainable based on previous department orders granting exemption and relied on relevant legal precedents to support their argument.

5. The High Court, citing various legal precedents, emphasized that when a statutory remedy like an appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. The Court held that the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was misconceived and not maintainable under Article 226. Therefore, the Court upheld the dismissal of the Writ Petition and granted liberty to the appellant to file an appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act before the CESTAT within three weeks.

6. The judgment highlights the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking writ jurisdiction and underscores the principle that an alternative and efficacious remedy should be pursued before invoking the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.