2003 (10) TMI 58 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting request for release of goods after mutilation under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962. Maintainability of writ petition due to availability of appeal remedy under Section 129A of the Act.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Order Rejecting Request for Release of Goods After Mutilation:
The case involved a writ petition filed by M/s. Cholan Paper and Board Mill Private Ltd. against the order of the Commissioner of Customs rejecting their request for release of goods after mutilation. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the request based on the timing of the request and the nature of the goods. The petitioner contended that the goods were waste papers in bales, while the respondents claimed they were white paper in reels. The Additional Solicitor General supported the rejection, stating that the goods were usable for writing/printing and attracting a higher rate of duty. The Court noted the availability of an effective remedy under Section 129A of the Customs Act, allowing appeals to the Appellate Tribunal against orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority.

2. Maintainability of Writ Petition Due to Availability of Appeal Remedy:
The Court addressed the issue of the writ petition's maintainability in light of the statutory appeal remedy under Section 129A of the Act. The petitioner argued that since the order under challenge was passed by the Commissioner of Customs following a direction from the Court, they should not be required to seek remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the Court held that the Commissioner of Customs was an adjudicating authority as per the Act and that the petitioner had an effective remedy through an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the statutory remedy should not be bypassed, even if the order was passed after a direction from the Court. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 129A, with the exclusion of time taken for the writ petition from the limitation period.

In conclusion, the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the writ petition challenging the order rejecting the request for release of goods after mutilation, citing the availability of an effective appeal remedy under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures and refraining from bypassing the appellate process, even if an order was passed following a court direction.