2023 (6) TMI 659 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory appellate remedy against the order of confiscation - perishable nature of the commodity that has been confiscated - HELD THAT - While it is no doubt well settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 can be exercised in particular cases notwithstanding the existence of an alternate remedy provided under the statute the conduct of the appellant in the instant case does not warrant the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant had earlier approached this Court through a Writ Petition impugning the confiscation order and the said Writ Petition was eventually disposed by relegating the appellant to his alternate remedy of pursuing the appellate remedies under the statute - Having proceeded down that route the appellant cannot now approach this Court aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority and prudence would require that this Court refrain from interfering with such appellate orders passed by the authorities in the hierarchy of appeals provided under the statute. It cannot be accepted that the Appellate Tribunal is not an efficacious alternate forum for redressal of his grievances. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of organic cashew kernels by customs authorities.
2. Withdrawal of writ petition and seeking alternate remedy.
3. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Confiscation of organic cashew kernels by customs authorities:
The appellant, a leading manufacturer and exporter of cashew based products, exported 400 cartons of organic cashew kernels which were rejected by overseas agency and returned. Subsequently, during inspection by customs authorities, 200 cartons were found unfit for home consumption, leading to a confiscation order and imposition of penalty. The appellant challenged the confiscation order in court, which initially separated the consignment into compliant and non-compliant portions. However, the appellant withdrew the writ petition, later filing a review petition alleging withdrawal without proper instructions. The review petition was disposed by reinstating the writ petition and directing the appellant to pursue statutory appellate remedy against the confiscation order.

Withdrawal of writ petition and seeking alternate remedy:
After the review petition, the appellate authority confirmed the confiscation order, which was then challenged in a fresh writ petition. The High Court observed that the appellant had chosen to pursue statutory remedies against the confiscation order, and cannot now challenge the order through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the appellant's conduct in choosing the statutory route earlier precluded them from seeking relief through the writ petition.

Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The appellant argued that due to practical difficulties and the perishable nature of the commodity, the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 for expeditious relief. However, the court held that while Article 226 can be invoked despite the existence of alternate remedies, the appellant's prior actions and choice to pursue statutory remedies precluded the High Court from intervening. The court emphasized that prudence required refraining from interfering with appellate orders passed by authorities in the hierarchy of appeals provided under the statute. The High Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice to the appellant's contentions on merits.