9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Customs Department on consideration of the report dated 20.11.2017 of the Regional Plant Quarantine Station, Kolkata showed that the test sample of said seized betel nuts were found to be infested by fungus “Aspergillus sp.”, the concerned adjudicating authority under the Customs Act, 1962 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for such provisional release of the areca nuts seized in the present case. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation and as Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 itself provides for an appeal against any order passed under the said 1962 Act before the appropriate authority as provided in the said Act - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. Vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal [2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT]. This writ petition of the petitioner, being not maintainable, his prayer for provisional release of the seized article (areca nuts) cannot be considered - appeal dismissed being not maintainable. - WP(C) 958/2018 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2018 - MR. MANASH RANJAN PATHAK J. Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. N Dasgupta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. 7) Similarly, the Central Arecanut Cocoa Marketing Processing Co-operative Limited in its report dated 30.10.2017 stated that said sample of Arecanut has Mouldy off taste and contains Yeast and Moulds 150000 per gm. 8) Further, the report dated 20.11.2017 of the Regional Plant Quarantine Station, Kolkata pertaining to the sample of Arecanut reflects that the same found to be infected/infested with visual, Magnoscopic and Microscopic test found to be containing of Aspergillus sp. and Liposcelis sp. 9) Mr. Sarma, learned Standing counsel also placed before the Court that the petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice issued by the DRI authority and with regard to provisional release of the seized goods under seizure in the case involved in the present petition that was filed by the petitioner, the Customs Officials on 15.03.2018 informed the DRI authorities that said application for provisional release of the seized betel nuts filed by the petitioner was already rejected by the Additional Commissioner in Customs Department on the basis of the test report dated 20.11.2017 of the Regional Plant Quarantine Station, Kolkata as the test sample of said seized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case, it is only after issuing the show-cause notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his reply, the Additional Commissioner of Customs Department on consideration of the report dated 20.11.2017 of the Regional Plant Quarantine Station, Kolkata showed that the test sample of said seized betel nuts were found to be infested by fungus Aspergillus sp. , the concerned adjudicating authority under the Customs Act, 1962 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for such provisional release of the areca nuts seized in the present case. 16) The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 may relate to recovery of public debt have held that- Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 18) In the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Panchanan Subudhi, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 552, a case where the Tribunal passed a decree in favour of the appellant for a sum of ₹ 16,10,957 along with pendent lite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application, the respondent challenged the proceedings initiated under the Act in Writ Petition and the High Court stayed the proceeding subject to the respondent depositing a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs, the Hon ble Supreme Court have held that In our view, the approach adopted by the High Court was clearly erroneous. When the respondent failed to abide by the terms of one-time settlement, there was no justification for the High Court to entertain the writ petition and that too by ignoring the fact that a statutory alternative remedy was available to the respondent under Section 17 of the Act. 19) The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 782, have held that In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
