9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the assessment and rejection of representation by Assistant Commissioner of Customs. 2. Availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to the assessment and rejection of representation by Assistant Commissioner of Customs The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ to treat a Bill of Entry filed for home consumption and refund additional import duties. The petitioner, engaged in pharmaceutical manufacturing, imported machinery and spare parts. The Bill of Entry was filed before the Union Budget, which changed duty rates post-budget. The petitioner requested to substitute the Bill of Entry for warehousing with one for home consumption. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the request and levied duties based on post-budget rates, leading to the challenge in the petition. The court noted the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court highlighted the principle that where an alternative remedy exists, resorting to writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not permissible. The court disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to file an appeal within two months, allowing the petitioner to challenge the rejection letter in the appeal. Issue 2: Availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 The court emphasized that the Customs Act, 1962 provides for an appeal mechanism under Section 128 for persons aggrieved by decisions or orders of Customs officers lower than a Collector of Customs. The appellate authority, now designated as Commissioner (Appeals), allows for challenging assessments made under the Act. Citing legal precedent, the court reiterated that when a statutory forum exists for redressal of grievances, the High Court should not entertain petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court clarified that the petitioner could challenge both the assessment and the rejection letter in the appeal. The court also noted that the Department would not oppose the appeal on the grounds of limitation if filed within the prescribed period. The judgment emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction. This judgment underscores the significance of exhausting statutory remedies, particularly the appeal process under the Customs Act, before approaching the High Court for relief. The court's decision highlights the principle that alternative remedies should be pursued before seeking intervention through writ jurisdiction.
|
