2018 (5) TMI 930 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - import of polyester spun yarn - it was found as white spun yarn and was wholly composed of polyester - rejection of declared value - Levy of penalty and redemption fine - Held that - the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The narration of facts clearly shows that certain factual matrix is required to be established for which the first appellate authority would be proper forum instead of invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the first instance. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, 2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT , considered the question of entertaining writ petition where alternative statutory remedy was available and held that it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The writ petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order-in-original dated 9/12.2.2018
2. Imposition of differential duty, interest, and penalty
3. Alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order

Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of order-in-original dated 9/12.2.2018
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order-in-original dated 9/12.2.2018 passed by respondent No.3. The order-in-original pertained to six show cause notices regarding bills of entry, where the value declared by the petitioner was rejected, and differential duty along with interest and penalty was imposed. The petitioner imported polyester spun yarn under the OGL category, cleared goods on payment of customs duty, and used the yarn for manufacturing fabrics. Despite the NOC given by DRI, the goods were not released, leading to legal proceedings and the issuance of show cause notices.

Issue 2: Imposition of differential duty, interest, and penalty
Respondent No.3 re-determined the value in the show cause notices, imposed differential duty, interest, and penalty on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition. The High Court emphasized the principle that when an alternative statutory remedy is available, the court may not entertain a writ petition. Citing relevant case law, the court highlighted that the petitioner should exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order, and the first appellate authority would be the proper forum to establish the factual matrix.

Issue 3: Alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order
The High Court referred to various legal precedents emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction. The court cited cases where it was held that the High Court should not interfere if an adequate alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. The court reiterated that the rule of self-imposed limitation guides the discretion of the High Court in entertaining writ petitions when statutory remedies exist. In light of these principles, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order dated 9/12.2.2018.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the order-in-original dated 9/12.2.2018. The court highlighted the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction, citing relevant legal principles and case law to support its decision.