Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 517 - HC - CustomsAvailability of alternative remedy - Rejection of request for cancellation/withdrawal of ex-bond Bills of Entry - reducing the basic customs duty and the agricultural infrastructure and development cess on crude palm oil - whether the appellant should be directed to avail the alternative remedy or whether the writ Court can exercise jurisdiction despite availability of alternative remedy under the statute? - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions have culled out certain exceptions to the restriction in refusing to entertain a writ petition when alternate remedy has been provided for. Some of the exceptions being that when an order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice; when the order has been passed without application of mind; or where the order suffers from the vice of total lack of jurisdiction etc. If the appellant’s case falls within any one of the exceptional circumstances they need not be relegated to the statutory remedy. In any event the direction issued by the learned writ Court in the earlier writ petition was by directing the fifth respondent to give an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order. Opportunity of hearing should be an effective opportunity of hearing and not illusory. There may be several cases where under the pretext of being infected by Covid-19 virus several employees had not reported for duty. There is every likelihood that the Customs Department would also have such cases. That apart, all establishments were functioning with less than 30% staff, public transport system was withdrawn. There was also restriction on plying of private vehicles on road. Therefore, the opportunity granted to the appellant is held to be thoroughly inadequate. Further, it is reiterated that the direction for release of the goods upon compliance of certain conditions can have no impact on the direction issued on the fifth respondent to pass a final order after granting opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant need not be relegated to avail the alternative remedy - the order dated 21.1.2022 impugned in the writ petition is unsustainable in law and in violation of principles of natural justice apart from having passed by misinterpreting the order passed in the earlier writ petition. Therefore, the order dated 21.1.2022 is liable to be set aside. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|