2020 (6) TMI 234 - HC - Customs

Detention of goods - overvaluation - case of petitioner is that role of the petitioner is only as a Customs Broker and have no role in declaring the value of the goods - HELD THAT - This Court cannot while exercising power under Article 226 exercise judicial review in examining the veracity and genuinity of impugned documents Exts.P9 and P11 as they are subject to appeal in view of the provisions of the Regulations 2013, now amended 2018 and Section 129 of the Customs Act. Though Sri.Sreelal Warrier, informs this court that he would be verifying regarding the working of the Tribunal but, there is no closure of the system in preventing the affected party in filing the appeal particularly when the limitation is not still expired. The petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy of appeal if so advised and the appeal is directed to be disposed of by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months as provided under the regulation. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the petitioner's licence renewal application.
2. Legality of the orders Ext.P9 and P11 rejecting the renewal application.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter.
4. Availability of appeal remedy under Regulation 19 and Section 129 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, an authorised Customs Broker, filed a writ petition challenging the order Ext.P9 alleging that the licence had expired on 14.04.2020. The petitioner was approached by M/s Swiss Global for export activities, and after submitting necessary documents, shipping bills were filed. The goods were detained by Trichy Customs over valuation concerns, and the petitioner's renewal application was rejected by the authorities despite a pending show cause notice challenge at the Madras High Court.

2. The petitioner contended that the proceedings against them were illegal, emphasizing their role as a Customs Broker without involvement in declaring the value of goods. The impugned orders Ext.P9 and P11 were deemed unsustainable as they did not reflect the submissions made during the renewal application process. The petitioner sought a review of the order, which was also rejected, leading to the current challenge in the High Court.

3. The court considered the appealability of the impugned orders under Regulation 19 and Section 129 of the Customs Act, allowing for a regular appeal within 90 days. Despite the petitioner's claim of non-functioning tribunals, the court held that it could not exercise judicial review under Article 226 to examine the documents' veracity. The petitioner was directed to avail the remedy of appeal, with the tribunal instructed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within two months.

4. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the appeal process provided by law, directing the petitioner to pursue the appeal remedy available instead of seeking relief through extraordinary jurisdiction. The court highlighted the need for timely resolution through the tribunal, granting the petitioner the option to seek modification if necessary due to tribunal non-functionality. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of, emphasizing the importance of utilizing the proper legal channels for redressal.