2013 (10) TMI 954 - HC - Customs

Duty demand u/s 28AB - Counter-signing the PIA certificates - Held that - petitioner has relied upon the forged PIA certificates. The petitioner is, however, claiming ignorance of forgery and has placed the responsibility on the Project Implementing Authority. The filing of the writ petition for counter-signing the PIA certificates by the Line Ministry is an issue, which is being agitated unsuccessfully by the petitioner so far and in any case the pendency of the writ petition cannot be a ground to avoid statutory appeal - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original confirming custom duty demand, interest, penalties, and appropriation of deposited amount; Appealability under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962; Petitioner's argument of illusory appeal remedy due to pending writ petition for counter-signing PIA certificates; Allegation of reliance on forged PIA certificates by petitioner; Dismissal of writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed against an Order-in-Original confirming the demand of custom duty, interest, penalties, and appropriation of deposited amount by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. The petitioner argued that the appeal remedy under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 would be illusory due to a pending writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1055 of 2012) regarding counter-signing of PIA certificates. The petitioner contended that filing an appeal would be futile until the resolution of the writ petition challenging the refusal to counter-sign the certificates by the Line Ministry. The petitioner emphasized that the CESTAT could not grant substantive relief until the resolution of the pending writ petition. The petitioner had already paid the demanded custom duty amount. The High Court noted the petitioner's reliance on forged PIA certificates and their claim of ignorance of forgery, shifting responsibility to the Project Implementing Authority. Despite the ongoing writ petition for counter-signing, the Court held that the pendency of the writ petition did not justify bypassing the statutory appeal process. The Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed legal procedures.

This judgment underscores the principle that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, such as an appeal, should not be circumvented merely due to the pendency of related writ petitions. The Court highlighted that the petitioner's reliance on forged certificates did not absolve them of responsibility, and the unresolved issue of counter-signing did not negate the requirement to pursue the statutory appeal process. By emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures and exhausting available remedies, the Court upheld the necessity of adhering to established legal frameworks for addressing grievances related to customs duties and penalties.