2017 (11) TMI 1125 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - appealable order - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - Normally, writ petitions are not entertained, where there is an equally efficacious alternative remedy - the petitioner should invoke the appellate statutory remedy by way of appeal under Section 128 of the Act. The same would be efficacious and proper forum for redressal of the grievance. If any such an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appealability of orders under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Entertaining writ petitions when alternative remedies are available.
3. Imposition of conditions for provisional clearance of goods.
4. Difference between pre-deposit conditions and challenging provisional release orders.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the appealability of orders under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, citing precedents from the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and Division Bench decisions of the High Court. The court acknowledged that such orders are appealable based on the statutory provisions.

2. The court highlighted that writ petitions are generally not entertained when alternative remedies are available, as seen in the Candex Chemical Fibres case. It emphasized the importance of invoking the statutory appellate remedy within a specified timeframe to ensure expeditious resolution of disputes.

3. The judgment discussed the imposition of conditions for provisional clearance of goods, referencing cases where harsh conditions were challenged. It noted instances where the High Court and Supreme Court permitted provisional release upon furnishing a Bank Guarantee or Bond, emphasizing the need to consider each case's merits individually.

4. A distinction was made between pre-deposit conditions and challenging provisional release orders based on the perceived harshness or onerousness of the imposed conditions. The court clarified that the decision to entertain a writ petition should be based on the specific circumstances of each case and not on a fixed percentage requirement for deposit.

5. Ultimately, the court directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate statutory remedy by filing an appeal under Section 128 of the Act within a specified timeframe. It assured that the appeal would not be dismissed on grounds of limitation and should be resolved expeditiously. The judgment was disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits, emphasizing the importance of following the proper forum for redressal of grievances.