TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uire the aggrieved party to exhaust the alternative remedy before the Court intervenes by way of judicial review. The customs law is a complete code by itself. The Customs Act and the Rules and bye-laws framed thereunder constitute a comprehensive and exhaustive Code. The appeal is a more comprehensive remedy in which all issues including factual issues and sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence on record can be gone into. When a statute is a complete code in itself on the concerned subject like the Customs Act and it provides a particular remedy before a particular forum, the aggrieved party must ordinarily exhaust such remedy before invoking the high prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court. This is a practice ordinarily followed by the Writ Courts and nothing extraordinary found in the facts of this case to depart from such well established practice. The decision in the case Nepa Agency Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [2015 (5) TMI 802 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] is followed. Whether a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy if the same has been admitted for hearing? - Held that: - it is not the legal position that once a petition is admitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C ) granted by the competent authority. (4) In the year 2008 as proprietor of M/s. Prayag International, the petitioner no. 2 imported a container laden with assorted confectionary items (chewing gum) at the port of Bombay and filed bill of entry No. 987786 dated 2 September, 2008 in his capacity as a CHA as a partner of the petitioner firm for assessment and clearance of the imported goods. The said goods were detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on the ground that the said import was made for one Ravi Kumar for monetary consideration. A show cause notice was issued by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs and by an order dated 20 August, 2009, the authorities confiscated the imported goods with an option to the importer to get the same released by payment of fine of ₹ 1.25 lacs and also imposed penalty of ₹ 1 lac on the importer. (5) The petitioner no. 2 challenged the said order dated 20 August, 2009 by way of appeal before the Commissioner of Customs which was disposed of by an order dated 30 November, 2009 whereby the impugned order was set aside with a direction for assessment of the bill of entry as per the proper Custom Valuation Rules, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , that the enquiry proceeding has been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. (11) By the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 mechanically upheld the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charges relating to violation of Regulation 13(a) of the CHALR, 2004, without any application of mind. Learned Counsel for the petitioners challenged the order of the respondent no. 2 on the following grounds:- (i) The respondent no. 2 upheld the finding of the Enquiry Office to the effect that the petitioners did not submit the Letter of Authority at the time of clearance of the goods under bill of entry No. 987786 dated 2 September, 2008, mechanically and without any basis. (ii) The records pertaining to the said bill of entry were neither disclosed nor produced at the time of hearing which was clear violation of the principles of natural justice. (iii) The purported finding of the respondent no. 2 that the petitioner no. 1 was guilty of violation of Regulation 13(a) of the CHALR, 2004 is based on no evidence and is perverse. (iv) No document from the Assessing Officer complaining that there had been failure on the part of the petitioner no. 1 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id decisions learned Counsel submitted that the respondents being statutory authorities have not acted in accordance with the provisions of the statute and in defiance of judicial procedure and in total violation of principles of natural justice causing serious prejudice to the petitioners, thus, warranting interference by this Court. Contention of the respondents:- (14) Although a detailed affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 giving particulars of the alleged irregularities and illegalities committed by the petitioners and seeking to justify the revocation of the CHA Licence of the petitioner no. 1, at the time of hearing Learned Counsel for the respondents primarily urged the point of maintainability of the writ petition. (15) Mr. Saraf, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that this writ petition should not be entertained in view of the availability of an appeal to a customs agent under Sec. 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 as provided by Regulation 21 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (in short CBLR 2013 ), which have replaced the CHALR, 2004. Learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order is passed on the basis of no evidence and is therefore perverse. However, I make it clear that these observations of mine are only prima facie in nature since I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition on the ground stated hereinafter. (18) I am fully conscious that availability of an efficacious alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. The High Court, having regard to the facts of a case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its writ jurisdiction. The High Court will require the aggrieved party to exhaust the alternative remedy before the Court intervenes by way of judicial review. Authorities for this proposition are legion and as an illustrative case one may refer to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation-vs.- Registrar of Trade Marks (supra). (19) In the case of Nepa Agency Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this court held that the customs law is a complete code by itself. The Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
