9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods leading to confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Appeal against the order of confiscation and penalty dismissed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). 3. Challenge to the orders passed by the Collector (Customs) and CEGAT through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Question of maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 in light of the statutory remedy under Section 130 of the Customs Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, engaged in import and export, imported Tapper Roller Bearings from Poland. The goods were declared differently in the invoice and bill of entry, leading to a show cause notice for misdeclaration. The Collector of Customs ordered confiscation of goods and imposed a penalty due to improper possession of a valid license and misrepresentation of importer details. 2. The petitioner's appeal before CEGAT challenging the confiscation and penalty was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, disputing the orders of the Collector and CEGAT. The High Court initially questioned the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of statutory remedy under Section 130 of the Customs Act. 3. The court deliberated on the distinction between alternative and statutory remedies, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before invoking Article 226 jurisdiction. Exceptions to this rule include cases of ultra vires proceedings, violation of natural justice, or jurisdictional excess by the tribunal. In this case, since the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of filing an appeal before CEGAT, the court found no justification to bypass further statutory remedies available under the Act. 4. Considering the delay in approaching the court, incomplete filing of paper books, and lack of fulfillment of procedural requirements, the High Court concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the exceptional circumstances required to justify invoking Article 226 jurisdiction. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to exhaust the statutory remedy of filing a reference application under Section 130(1) of the Act before seeking judicial intervention. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the confiscation and penalty imposed on the petitioner for misdeclaration of imported goods. The court held that the petitioner should have exhausted the statutory remedy of filing a reference application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act before approaching the court under Article 226. The court emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements and exhausting statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary judicial intervention.
|
