Writ jurisdiction survives alternative remedy, and a non-speaking reversal without proof of lawful import cannot stand.

Availability of a statutory appeal did not create an absolute bar to writ or supervisory jurisdiction; the High Court could still exercise Articles 226 and 227 within the limits of judicial review, and the petition was entertained as maintainable. Where the assessee produced no material to prove lawful import and the Tribunal reversed concurrent findings without reasons, the non-speaking order was unsustainable. The reasoned order restoring confiscation, redemption fine, and the reduced penalty was therefore reinstated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy and the scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the Tribunal's order setting aside confiscation and penalty could stand when no supporting material was produced to establish licit importation and the order was non-speaking.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy and the scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The availability of a statutory appeal did not create an absolute bar to the exercise of writ or supervisory jurisdiction. The High Court retained discretion to entertain the petition, though the scope of scrutiny under Articles 226 and 227 remained confined to judicial review and did not expand into a full appellate reappraisal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held maintainable and was entertained under Article 227.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's order setting aside confiscation and penalty could stand when no supporting material was produced to establish licit importation and the order was non-speaking.

Analysis: The record showed that the assessee had not produced supporting documents before the authorities to substantiate the claim of lawful import. The Tribunal reversed the concurrent findings without adverting to any material and relied on considerations that were not germane to the controversy. Since the goods were admitted to be of foreign origin and lawful import was not proved, the earlier order imposing confiscation with redemption fine and reducing the personal penalty was justified. The Tribunal's unexplained reversal was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the appellate authority's order restoring confiscation with redemption on fine and the reduced penalty was reinstated.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal succeeded, the confiscatory and penalty consequences recorded by the appellate authority were restored, and the writ petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee fails to produce material establishing licit importation, and the Tribunal reverses concurrent factual findings without reasons, the High Court may interfere in supervisory jurisdiction and restore the reasoned order of the lower appellate authority.

---