9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of Assistant Collector's order refixing the value of Dathatsu Diesel engines with gear box. 2. Jurisdiction of the court to interfere with the order when the right of appeal exists. 3. Challenge to the order of confiscation made under Section 128 of the Customs Act regarding redemption of goods. 4. Requirement of exercising discretion before making an order of absolute confiscation. 5. Applicability of previous judgments regarding the exercise of discretion in customs matters. 6. Consideration of alternative remedy and the maintainability of a writ petition. 7. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision on the issuance of a writ of prohibition. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses two writ petitions challenging orders related to customs matters. The first petition seeks to quash the Assistant Collector's order refixing the value of Dathatsu Diesel engines with gear box. The successor Assistant Collector revised the value, prompting the petitioner to claim errors in adjudication. However, the court declined to interfere, emphasizing the availability of the right to appeal to the Collector (Appeals) against the order, which renders the jurisdiction of the court inapplicable without specific grounds for challenging the appealable order. 2. The second writ petition challenges an order of confiscation made under Section 128 of the Customs Act, contending that the Assistant Collector should have allowed redemption of goods before absolute confiscation. The petitioner argues that errors in the order warrant interference. The court highlights the appealable nature of the order, allowing the petitioner to raise all grounds before the Appellate Authority. Previous judgments are cited to support the requirement of exercising discretion before ordering confiscation, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness in customs matters. 3. The judgment references relevant case laws to establish the necessity of giving an option to redeem confiscated goods before absolute confiscation. It cites a Supreme Court decision remitting a matter to the Collector of Customs to consider granting such an option, emphasizing the importance of fairness and reasonableness in exercising discretion in customs cases. The court stresses the role of the appellate authority in deciding on the redemption of goods, underscoring that such matters fall within the appellate jurisdiction rather than the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The court addresses the issue of alternative remedies, citing a judgment that alternative remedy does not bar the maintainability of a writ petition if the order is highly prejudicial and relief through the appropriate forum is unattainable for an extended period. However, in the absence of evidence that the right of appeal is illusory or that seeking an appeal would cause undue delay, the court dismisses the writ petitions, directing the petitioner to pursue appeals before the appellate authority for relief. 5. Lastly, the judgment clarifies the application of a Supreme Court decision regarding the issuance of a writ of prohibition when a tribunal violates established law. It distinguishes the present case as involving the exercise of discretion by the Assistant Collector, which falls under the appellate authority's purview. The court emphasizes that the appellate authority is tasked with deciding on the exercise of discretion in favor of the petitioner, underscoring the need for the petitioner to seek relief through the appellate process rather than Article 226 of the Constitution.
|
