2022 (5) TMI 589 - HC - Customs

Availability of alternative remedy - bar to invoke writ jurisdiction or not - Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - re-determination of the value - HELD THAT - It is accepted by the petitioner that the Appeal is provided Against the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Availability of alternative remedy is certainly not an anathema for this court to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The rule of alternate remedy is a rule of self-restraint. If substantive remedy of Appeal is available the court would be slow to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case the principle of natural justice appears to have been adhered to. Opportunity of hearing has been accorded to the petitioner. Petitioners are not challenging the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. The respondent authorities had the jurisdiction to pass the orders. Only because according to the petitioner orders are erroneous or that there is some infraction of procedure that would not be sufficient to term the order as an excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction. The factual dispute is about the valuation and the manner in which it had been valued is not accepted by the Commissioner or the Assessment Officer. Same can be challenged on merits. The said aspect can be dealt with and considered by the Appellate Authorities. Once the petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal it would be in appropriate to entertain the Writ Petition more particularly when further remedy of Appeal is available. There is no impediment for the petitioner to avail the remedy of Appeal. Only because the petitioners will have to file 111 and 88 Appeals would be no ground to invoke Writ Jurisdiction of this court. Writ Petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy as is permissible in law. In that event all contentions on merits are kept open.

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ petitions despite availability of alternate remedy.
2. Compliance with circulars and instructions in assessment orders.
3. Rejection of declared values and re-determination of value under relevant rules.
4. Adequacy of opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner.
5. Applicability of the rule of alternate remedy in the present case.

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ petitions despite availability of alternate remedy:
The petitioner challenged the order in Appeal and the order in Assessment passed by the Authorities. The Respondents argued that the petitioner has an alternate remedy to file an Appeal. The petitioner contended that the High Court can invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if an alternate remedy is available, especially when the authority against whom the Writ is filed lacks jurisdiction or has usurped jurisdiction without legal foundation. The petitioner relied on various judgments to support this argument.

Issue 2: Compliance with circulars and instructions in assessment orders:
The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed in contravention of Circular and IR No.62/2018 issued by SVB, making them without jurisdiction. The petitioner emphasized that the authorities failed to adhere to the procedure and circulars, despite the SVB accepting the petitioner's pricing methodology. The petitioner claimed that the orders were based on assumptions and presumptions, leading to manifest injustice.

Issue 3: Rejection of declared values and re-determination of value under relevant rules:
The impugned orders rejected declared values under Rule 12 of CVR, 2007 and re-determined values under Rule 4 of CVR, 2007. Further, additions were made under Rule 9(1)(C) and Rule 10(1)(c) of CVR, 2007 without proper adjudication proceedings or issuance of a Show Cause Notice. The rejection of declared values directly contradicted the circular and IR issued by SVB, indicating a lack of adherence to prescribed procedures.

Issue 4: Adequacy of opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the petition should not be relegated to the remedy of appeal due to the unnecessary hardship it would face, having to file numerous appeals and potentially facing erroneous assessments. The petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances warranted the High Court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 5: Applicability of the rule of alternate remedy in the present case:
The Respondents argued that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy available and should avail it. They maintained that the respondent authorities had the necessary jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders, and disputed questions of facts were involved. The Respondents relied on various judgments to support their contention that the petitioner should avail the alternate remedy instead of seeking writ jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the petitioner had already availed the remedy before the 1st Appellate Authority, and further remedy of Second Appeal was available. The Court emphasized that the rule of alternate remedy is a rule of self-restraint and that Writ jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. Since the petitioner had not shown a breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of the statute, the Court declined to entertain the Writ Petitions. The Court disposed of both Writ Petitions, granting the petitioner liberty to avail alternate remedy, while keeping all contentions on merits open.

← Previous Next →