2018 (10) TMI 227 - HC - Customs

Confiscation - redemption fine - export of misdeclared goods - Raw Cashew Nuts - Held that - After noticing the fact that there were two contradictory reports, the adjudicating authority obtained a third report from another authority. All this this would require appreciation of impugned order in the context of the evidence before it. These are issues which are best agitated and resolved before the Appellate Authority under the Act - there is no reason to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as efficacious alternate remedy is available under the Act from the impugned order dated 3 August 2018 - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order under Customs Act for confiscation of mis-declared goods, reliance on contradictory test reports, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenged an order dated 3rd August, 2018, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs under the Customs Act, confiscating goods declared as "Roasted Cashew Nuts Grade BB" due to mis-declaration as broken Raw Cashew Nuts. Redemption was allowed for export upon payment of a fine.

2. The petitioner argued that the impugned order relied on a test report favoring the Revenue, disregarding a report in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner sought the court's intervention under Article 226 despite the availability of an appeal under the Act.

3. The court noted the existence of contradictory reports and mentioned that the adjudicating authority obtained a third report for consideration. It emphasized that such issues should be addressed before the Appellate Authority under the Act.

4. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, stating that an effective alternative remedy existed under the Act. The petition was dismissed without costs.