1993 (10) TMI 94 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Power of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) to pass interim orders.
3. Validity of the order passed by the Collector of Customs.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The High Court emphasized that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to circumvent or bypass the remedy of statutory appeal. The Court stated, "It is a settled position of law that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to circumvent or by-pass the remedy of statutory appeal and only for the purpose of granting a relief of an interim nature, without deciding the subject matter of the dispute." The Court further noted that granting interim relief without deciding the merits of the case could result in infructuating the order of confiscation, thereby causing loss to public revenue and defeating the object of the law.

2. Power of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) to pass interim orders:
The Court clarified that CEGAT has the power to pass interim orders. It stated, "Section 129B of the Act empowers the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to confirm, modify or annul the decision or order appealed against." Additionally, Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, allows the Tribunal to pass such orders or give such directions as may be necessary to secure the ends of justice. The Court concluded that the Tribunal has inherent power to pass interim orders to preserve the status quo and ensure that the main relief sought in the appeal is available at the end of the proceedings.

3. Validity of the order passed by the Collector of Customs:
The Court noted that the order passed by the Collector of Customs is appealable to CEGAT. The Court stated, "The order passed by the Collector is appealable and an appeal lies to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which can confirm, modify or annul the decision of the Collector appealed against." The Court emphasized that it would not be appropriate for the High Court to entertain the writ petition and direct the release of the goods without adjudicating the validity of the Collector's order. The Court held that directing the release of the goods would only be appropriate if it is found that the confiscation ordered is not sustainable.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 27-9-1993 passed in Writ Petition 16738 of 1993, and declared that the decisions rendered in similar writ petitions cannot be considered as laying down any law or binding precedent for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters. The Court concluded that the respondent/writ petitioner could approach CEGAT for appropriate relief.