2018 (11) TMI 425 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Validity of SCN - SCN issued without seizing the goods - whether the goods are liable to be confiscated? - Held that - The Customs Act, 1962, as seen, provides for an effective Appellate mechanism. Any person aggrieved by any Order or decision passed by a Lower Adjudicating Authority is entitled, under Section 128 of the Act, to appeal against it before the Commissioner of Customs Appeals . Later on, if the grievance subsists, that person, under Section 129, can appeal to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - A statute may provide to an aggrieved person an efficacious remedy through an appeal to the prescribed Authority and a second appeal to the Tribunal. Only after exhausting them can an aggrieved person knock the High Court s doors. The Ezek s plea is declined to be entertained, by invoking this Court s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, for Ezke does have an efficacious alternative remedy - but the respondent authorities will hear Ezek s representative and dispose of its claim for the release, provisional or otherwise, of the imported goods, expeditiously, in one week - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of electronic goods for testing and demonstration purpose without BIS registration.
2. Dispute regarding the purpose of import and the necessity of BIS certification.
3. Availability of statutory remedies under the Customs Act before approaching the High Court.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a start-up company importing electronic goods from China for testing and demonstration purposes without obtaining BIS registration. The Customs authorities insisted on BIS registration, leading to a dispute over the purpose of import and the requirement for certification. The company argued that the import was solely for trial and demonstration, emphasizing that BIS registration was unnecessary.

2. The Customs authorities contended that the company had initially indicated the goods were for "trial phase implementation" but later changed its stance to "testing and demonstration purpose." The necessity of BIS registration was highlighted, citing statutory obligations and previous imports of similar goods. The conflicting claims regarding the purpose of import and the need for BIS certification created a factual dispute influencing the outcome.

3. The judgment emphasized the availability of statutory remedies under the Customs Act for aggrieved parties. Quoting relevant legal precedents, the court highlighted the appellate mechanisms provided by the Act, including appeals to the Commissioner of Customs [Appeals] and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court reiterated the principle that Article 226 of the Constitution should not be used to bypass statutory procedures unless exceptional circumstances warrant immediate judicial intervention.

4. In light of the statutory remedies available and to discourage the misuse of Article 226 petitions for interim orders, the court declined to entertain the plea under its extraordinary jurisdiction. Instead, the court directed the respondent authorities to promptly hear the company's representative and decide on the release of the imported goods within a week of receiving the judgment. This decision aimed to ensure a swift resolution while upholding the importance of following established statutory procedures in customs matters.