1989 (9) TMI 127 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Legality and validity of the customs duty demand.
3. Availability and adequacy of alternative statutory remedies.
4. Apprehension regarding appellate authority's consideration of retesting request.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India:

The judgment questions whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India when a statutory remedy is available. It emphasizes that the High Court's power under these articles is not an ordinary jurisdiction but an extraordinary one, meant to be invoked only when no other remedy is available. The Supreme Court's stance in cases like State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj and Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa is cited, which underscores that when a statute provides a complete machinery for redressal, the remedy prescribed by the statute must be availed of.

2. Legality and validity of the customs duty demand:

The petitioner challenged the Assistant Collector of Customs' order, which confirmed a customs duty demand of Rs. 1,45,91,209/-. The Assistant Collector had dropped the demand for additional customs duty based on a previous High Court decision, but upheld the primary customs duty demand. The petitioner argued that the sample tested was potentially contaminated, thus questioning the validity of the customs duty imposed.

3. Availability and adequacy of alternative statutory remedies:

The judgment stresses that the Customs Act, 1962 provides an appellate remedy before the Collector (Appeals), Customs Appellate Office, Bombay. It is noted that the statutory remedy is comprehensive, allowing for both factual and legal issues to be addressed. The High Court should not entertain petitions under Article 226/227 when such statutory remedies are available, as doing so would undermine the extraordinary nature of its jurisdiction and lead to an overload of cases that could be handled by other authorities.

4. Apprehension regarding appellate authority's consideration of retesting request:

The petitioner expressed concern that the appellate authority might not consider their request for retesting another sample of the imported coking coal. The judgment addresses this apprehension by stating that there is no basis to presume that the appellate authority will act arbitrarily. It acknowledges that the petitioner's request for retesting was prima facie just and proper, and it is reasonable to expect that the appellate authority will consider such requests fairly and in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:

The High Court directed the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy provided under the statute rather than invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the court expressing confidence that the appellate authority would act reasonably and consider the petitioner's request for retesting another sample in a just manner.