2018 (4) TMI 610 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - Alternative remedy of appeal - Held that - On more than one occasion, Hon ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, held that when there is an effective and alternate remedy, provided under the taxing laws, writ petitions, should not be entertained. The order of the writ Court made in W.P.No26435 of 2017 dated 10.10.2017, directing the appellant to avail the alternate remedy provided under the statute, cannot be said to be manifestly illegal warranting interference - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of Customs Broker Licence.
2. Imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security deposit.
3. Allegations of misconduct and receipt of ?2,00,000.
4. Availability of an alternative remedy.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Revocation of Customs Broker Licence:
The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, revoked the Customs Broker Licence No. CHN/R-294/2013 of M/s. Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd. under Regulation 20(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The revocation was immediate but allowed the broker to complete pending cases where Bill of Entries or Shipping Bills had already been filed.

2. Imposition of Penalty and Forfeiture of Security Deposit:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty of ?50,000 on M/s. Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd. under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013, and forfeited their security deposit of ?5,00,000. This action was taken without prejudice to any other potential actions under Customs Law or any other applicable laws.

3. Allegations of Misconduct and Receipt of ?2,00,000:
The appellant received ?2,00,000 from an importer, which was alleged to be paid to the Investigating Agencies. The importer's statement claimed that the appellant was coerced into making this payment. The appellant argued that the transaction was through an approved banking channel, and the show cause notice did not specify which regulation was violated. The Court found that these factual disputes required a thorough examination, which could not be conducted in a writ petition.

4. Availability of an Alternative Remedy:
The Court emphasized that when an effective and alternative remedy is available, such as appealing to the CESTAT, Madras, the writ petition should not be entertained. The Court cited several precedents, including Union of India v. T.R. Verma and C.A. Ibrahim v. ITO, which established that litigants must exhaust statutory remedies before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The Court reiterated that the power of judicial review under Article 226 is a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion, not a rule of law. Exceptions to this rule include cases involving fundamental rights violations, principles of natural justice, or orders passed without jurisdiction. However, in this case, the Court found no compelling reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by the statute.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the appellant to avail the alternative remedy of appealing to the CESTAT, Madras. The Court granted the appellant three weeks from the date of receipt of the order to file an appeal, and directed CESTAT, Madras, to process the appeal expeditiously. The judgment underscores the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before seeking judicial review under Article 226, except in exceptional circumstances.