Writ jurisdiction survives expiry of statutory remedy where tribunal order is perverse and misapplies confiscation law under the Customs Act.

Availability and expiry of a statutory reference remedy under the Customs Act did not bar the High Court's writ and supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, which may still correct jurisdictional error, obvious illegality and perversity. On the merits, the Tribunal misapplied Section 123 to admitted foreign-origin goods, overlooked the statutory scheme and relevant findings under Sections 111(d) and 112(b), and relied on irrelevant considerations. The High Court held the Tribunal's order unsustainable, set it aside, and restored the adjudicating authority's confiscation and penalties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable despite the availability and expiry of the statutory reference remedy under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside confiscation and penalties by applying Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and by disregarding the adjudicating authority's findings under Sections 111(d) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable despite the availability and expiry of the statutory reference remedy under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The existence of a statutory remedy does not create an absolute bar to the exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction. The High Court's power under Articles 226 and 227 remains discretionary and is not displaced merely because a reference remedy under the Customs Act was available but not pursued within time. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 also permits correction of jurisdictional errors and obvious illegality in an order of a Tribunal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the preliminary objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside confiscation and penalties by applying Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and by disregarding the adjudicating authority's findings under Sections 111(d) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The goods were admitted to be of foreign origin, and the dispute was whether they had been lawfully imported. The Tribunal relied on principles and case law relating to Section 123, though that provision was not attracted on the facts. It also ignored the inconsistent stand of the parties and the material supporting confiscation and penalty. The High Court held that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and relied on irrelevant considerations, resulting in a perverse order that warranted correction under Article 227.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was unsustainable and was set aside; the adjudicating authority's confiscation and penalties were restored.

Final Conclusion: The High Court affirmed the confiscation proceedings and penalty action, holding that the Tribunal had wrongly interfered by applying inapplicable legal principles and by overlooking the proper statutory scheme governing prohibited goods and confiscation.

Ratio Decidendi: Availability or expiry of a statutory reference remedy does not oust the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction, and a Tribunal's order may be corrected in writ jurisdiction when it is vitiated by misapplication of law, reliance on irrelevant provisions, or perversity.

---