Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURTMaintainability of petition before HC or SC - alternative remedy of appeal - appropriate jurisdiction to maintain appeal - rate of duty of customs - Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- As would be evident from a conjoint reading of Section 130 and Section 130E, all appeals would lie to the High Court except where they relate to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs. While it is true that the exclusion of color coated coils in terms of the impugned order may have an inferential impact on the rate of duty that may liable to be imposed on those articles, we find that the Supreme Court in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS DESIGNATED AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ANTI-DUMPING & ALLIED DUTIES & OTHERS [2017 (4) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] has while explaining the ambit of the exclusionary provisions as appearing in Section 130 and Section 130E has culled out the basic principle to be that the determination of a rate of duty must be read as meaning a “direct” and “proximate” relation to the question of rate of duty. The determination by the CESTAT does not meet the test of real, direct and proximate relationship to rate of duty as enunciated by the Supreme Court in SAIL. An order which may merely have a consequential or inferential repercussion on the rate of duty question is not what is intended to be excluded from the ambit of Section 130 of the Act. Whether the writ remedy would be appropriate or whether the petitioners would have to be relegated to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court which otherwise flows from Section 130? - HELD THAT:- Section 130 constructs an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy for the purposes of considering all questions that may arise from the order of the CESTAT impugned before us. We also bear in mind the well-settled principle of the extraordinary nature of the remedy which Article 226 constitutes and the self-imposed restraints which High Courts bear in mind when called upon to invoke their constitutional power - In the facts of the present case, it is found that the writ petitioners here would be well advised to pursue the remedy as constructed in terms of Section 130 since all questions that are raised with respect to the order of the CESTAT can very well be advanced in those proceedings. For the purpose of considering the applications for vacation of stay as moved, let these matters be called again on 10.11.2023 in the category of “End of Board” matters.
|