2016 (7) TMI 796 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of writ petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Absolute confiscation of the articles in question i.e. gold biscuits weighing 4334.79 grams - The Commissioner has also ordered confiscation of other articles and has also imposed penalty on the persons found to be in possession of or dealing with the gold in question. - Held that - exercise of writ jurisdiction in this matter is declined; and this writ petition stands dismissed. However it is left open for the petitioner in taking recourse to appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Issues:
1. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 challenging confiscation order under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Availability of alternative remedy of appeal.
3. Justification for entertaining the writ petition bypassing the appeal remedy.
4. Commissioner's findings on the validity of proceedings under Sections 110, 111 of the Act of 1962.
5. Jurisdictional error in Commissioner's order.
6. Dismissal of the writ petition and direction to seek appropriate remedy.

Issue 1: Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original confiscating gold biscuits under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court queried the availability of alternative appeal remedy and the justification for entertaining the writ petition. The petitioner argued that the authority did not properly examine the validity of proceedings under Section 110 of the Act, seeking writ jurisdiction due to the onerous nature of the appeal remedy.

Issue 2: Availability of alternative remedy of appeal:
The Court noted that the petitioner had previously approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave to Appeal petition, which was dismissed with liberty to raise all available grounds. The Commissioner had addressed the grounds raised by the petitioner, concluding that the Customs Officers rightly proceeded under the Act of 1962. The Court emphasized the importance of the appeal remedy and declined to entertain the writ petition.

Issue 3: Justification for entertaining the writ petition:
The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish a strong case for bypassing the appeal remedy. The Commissioner's order addressed the petitioner's concerns, and the matter was deemed suitable for consideration by the appropriate authority in accordance with the law. The Court dismissed the writ petition but allowed the petitioner to seek the appropriate remedy.

Issue 4: Commissioner's findings on validity of proceedings:
The Commissioner specifically considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and examined the justification for proceeding under Sections 110, 111 of the Act of 1962. The Commissioner concluded that the gold biscuits were smuggled into India in contravention of the Act. The findings regarding the individuals involved in the possession and dealing with the gold were also addressed in the order.

Issue 5: Jurisdictional error in Commissioner's order:
The Court did not find any jurisdictional error in the Commissioner's order. It stated that the petitioner's contentions were adequately addressed by the Commissioner, and the decision was based on the evidence and material available. The Court emphasized that the appellate forum would be responsible for reviewing the Commissioner's findings on merits.

Issue 6: Dismissal of the writ petition and direction to seek appropriate remedy:
The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, dismissing the petition. It directed the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the need for the concerned authority to handle the matter impartially and expeditiously once the petitioner seeks the appropriate remedy.

← Previous Next →