2021 (6) TMI 436 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - petition is filed on the ground that the impugned order has been passed without awaiting the decision of the licensing authority based on the letters sent by the writ petitioner, stating that they have fulfilled the export obligations - HELD THAT - In the present case, the appeal lies before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) before whom the legal practitioners are permitted to test the cases. When the litigants are having the benefit of legal assistance through the legal practitioners, then such a remedy must be exhausted by the aggrieved persons before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as stated above. Disputed facts cannot be adjudicated by the High Court nor a finding can be given in a writ proceedings without exhausting the appellate remedy and therefore, the petitioner is bound to approach the appellate authority under the Act. The introductory portion of the impugned order reveals that an appeal against the impugned order lies with the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), 5th Floor, Customs House, Chennai, under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, within 60 days of the communication of the impugned order. In the event of non-filing of an appeal, the litigants are not only deprived of an opportunity, but the High Court cannot appreciate those facts culled out with reference to the documents and evidences. The appellate authority in the event of passing an order, with reference to the facts and the grounds raised, it would be convenient for the High Court to consider the further proceedings, if any in the light of the findings by the original authority as well as by the appellate authority. These aspects are vital in order to form a clear opinion, which would be of paramount importance to render justice - Thus, the importance of an appeal under a statute cannot be undermined by the High Court by dispensing with the appellate remedy. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the impugned order issued by the Joint Commissioner of Customs.
2. Fulfillment of export obligation by the petitioner.
3. Availability and exhaustion of the appellate remedy under the Customs Act.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Impugned Order:
The petitioner sought to quash the order issued by the Joint Commissioner of Customs dated 22.03.2021, which confirmed the demand for customs duty and imposed penalties. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without awaiting the decision of the licensing authority and did not consider the evidence submitted regarding the fulfillment of export obligations. The court noted that the petitioner was aware of the appellate remedy available under the Customs Act but chose to file a writ petition instead.

2. Fulfillment of Export Obligation:
The petitioner claimed to have fulfilled the export obligation by exporting double-layered laminated glass and submitted the necessary documents to the Zonal Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Chennai. Despite submitting the bank realization certificates and other required documents, the petitioner did not receive a response from the Zonal DGFT. The Joint Commissioner issued a show cause notice alleging non-fulfillment of the export obligation and subsequently passed the impugned order demanding customs duty and imposing penalties. The court highlighted that the petitioner had requested the adjudication proceedings to be kept in abeyance until a decision was made by the licensing authority, but this request was not considered.

3. Availability and Exhaustion of the Appellate Remedy:
The court emphasized the importance of exhausting the appellate remedy provided under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act before approaching the High Court. It was noted that the petitioner had the right to appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and that such an appeal would allow for a comprehensive review of both facts and legal grounds. The court stressed that the appellate authority has quasi-judicial powers to summon documents, hear parties, and decide appeals on merits. The court cited previous judgments to reiterate that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions without the exhaustion of statutory remedies unless in extraordinary circumstances.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The court asserted that the High Court's powers under Article 226 are limited and should not be extended to conduct inquiries into disputed facts. The High Court's role is to ensure that the procedures contemplated by the competent authorities are followed, not to adjudicate on the merits of the case. The court emphasized that the appellate authority is better positioned to appreciate the facts and evidence and that bypassing the appellate remedy undermines the legislative intention behind providing such remedies. The court concluded that the petitioner must exhaust the appellate remedy before seeking relief from the High Court.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to approach the appellate authority within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The court reiterated the importance of following the statutory appeal process and the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that the appellate remedy should be exhausted to ensure a thorough and just review of the case.