2018 (9) TMI 1678 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - the statutory remedies provided under the Customs Act not exhausted - Benefit of N/N. 46 /2011 Cus dated 01.06.2011 - concessional rate of basic customs duty for all goods classifiable under heading 480830 to 480990 - import of of Carbonless Paper Black Image, classifiable under customs tariff heading 4809. Held that - This Court is of an opinion that the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the said Act is empowered to adjudicate all the legal grounds raised by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition and also the factual disputes. Such being the powers of the Appellate Tribunal, the writ petitioner has to approach the Tribunal for an appropriate adjudication to resolve the issues and redress his grievances - Usurping the powers of such Appellate Tribunals created under the Act cannot be done in a routine manner by the Constitutional Courts. Institutional respects are to be maintained in respect of taking decisions by the competent authorities. The institutions created under the statutes must be allowed to exercise their powers and functions in the manner known to law. Intermittent Interventions frequently by the Courts will create unnecessary complications and will pave way for conflicts and the decisions in such issues. The issues raised by the writ petitioner in the writ petition cannot be adjudicated as the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate all such disputes. The institutional functions and exhausting the appeal remedies by the aggrieved persons, are to be enforced in all circumstances and writ proceedings can be entertained only on exceptional circumstances. Rule is to prefer an appeal and entertaining a writ is only an exception. This being the legal principles to be followed, this Court cannot entertain the writ petitions in a routine manner by waiving the remedy of appeal provided under the statute. The writ petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Appellate authorities and thereafter, before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 129(A) of the Customs Act,1972 for the purpose of redressing his grievances in the manner known to law - petition dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Withdrawal of concessional rate of basic customs duty under Notification No. 46/2011.
2. Exhaustion of statutory remedies under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts in matters with alternative statutory remedies.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Withdrawal of Concessional Rate of Basic Customs Duty:

The petitioner, a regular importer of Carbonless Paper Black Image, classified under customs tariff heading 4809, filed a bill of entry for clearance of goods and claimed the benefit of serial number 553 of Notification No. 46/2011, which provided a concessional rate of basic customs duty for goods under headings 480830 to 480990. The petitioner contended that the benefits granted through Notification No. 46/2011 were withdrawn mistakenly and thus sought the continuation of the concessional rate. The respondents opposed this, asserting that the withdrawal was a deliberate decision, not a mistake, and thus the petitioner was not eligible for the claimed concession.

2. Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies:

The respondents argued that the petitioner must exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Customs Act, 1962, specifically under Section 128, which provides for appeals first to the Commissioner and then to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129(A). The court emphasized that the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate all legal and factual disputes raised by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner should approach the Tribunal for appropriate adjudication rather than seeking direct intervention from the Constitutional Court.

3. Jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts:

The court discussed the principle of separation of powers, highlighting that Constitutional Courts should not routinely intervene in matters where statutory remedies are available. It stressed the importance of maintaining institutional respect and allowing statutory bodies to exercise their functions without unnecessary judicial interference. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, underscoring that writ petitions should not be entertained if an effective alternative remedy exists unless there is a gross injustice or violation of fundamental rights. The court cited cases like Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India and Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, affirming the doctrine of separation of powers and the necessity for courts to respect the jurisdiction and functions of statutory bodies.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the issues raised by the petitioner could not be adjudicated directly by the High Court, as the Appellate Tribunal under the Customs Act is competent to handle such disputes. The court reiterated that writ petitions should be an exception and not the rule when statutory remedies are available. The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate appellate authorities and the Appellate Tribunal for redressal of grievances. The court emphasized that maintaining the separation of powers and respecting statutory remedies is crucial for upholding the constitutional framework.