2011 (2) TMI 218 - HC - Customs

High Court dismisses Writ Petitions challenging CESTAT order, emphasizes appeal remedy under Customs Act.

M/s. Apcotex Industries Ltd. & others Versus Union of India & others

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions challenging the CESTAT order, emphasizing the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal under the Customs ... Demand - The dispute in the present case relates to the valuation of the imported goods for the purposes of assessment - Under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, an appeal against the order of CESTAT relating to valuation of the imported goods for the purpose of assessment is required to be filed before the Supreme Court and not before the High Court - Similarly, the contention of the petitioners that the Tribunal failed to consider the oral and written submissions made by the petitioners is also not entirely correct, because, the Tribunal has considered the basic contentions raised by the petitioners and arrived at a conclusion which if aggrieved, can be challenged by filing an appeal - Accordingly, all these writ petitions are hereby dismissed Issues:1. Maintainability of Writ Petitions challenging CESTAT order.2. Applicability of Apex Court decisions on valuation of imported goods.3. Invocation of writ jurisdiction due to alleged errors by CESTAT.4. Consideration of oral and written submissions by CESTAT.5. Distinction between decisions in valuation of imported goods.6. Availability of alternate remedy of appeal under Customs Act.Issue 1 - Maintainability of Writ Petitions:The judgment deals with the maintainability of Writ Petitions challenging the CESTAT order. The respondents raised a preliminary objection citing the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal under the Customs Act, arguing against the entertainment of the Writ Petitions. The petitioners contended that the CESTAT decision was erroneous and could be rectified through writ jurisdiction due to alleged illegality and non-consideration of submissions.Issue 2 - Applicability of Apex Court decisions:The dispute revolved around the valuation of imported goods, specifically whether the assessable value should be based on the purchase price from the foreign supplier or the high seas seller. The petitioners argued that the CESTAT wrongly relied on a previous Apex Court decision, contending that the decision was not applicable to the present case. They also highlighted a different Apex Court decision that they believed was more relevant, emphasizing the need to rectify the alleged errors in the CESTAT order.Issue 3 - Invocation of writ jurisdiction:The petitioners sought writ jurisdiction to challenge the alleged errors committed by the CESTAT, arguing that the Tribunal's reliance on certain Apex Court decisions was incorrect. They claimed that the Tribunal's decision was contrary to the law established by the Apex Court and warranted intervention through writ jurisdiction for the interest of justice.Issue 4 - Consideration of submissions by CESTAT:The petitioners contended that the CESTAT failed to consider their oral and written submissions adequately, leading to an allegedly erroneous decision. However, the Court found that the Tribunal had indeed considered the basic contentions raised by the petitioners, suggesting that any grievances could be addressed through the appeal process rather than writ jurisdiction.Issue 5 - Distinction between decisions:The judgment highlighted the distinction between the decisions of the Apex Court in different cases regarding the valuation of imported goods. The Court emphasized that the petitioners' ability to distinguish the decisions relied upon by the Tribunal did not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting the invocation of writ jurisdiction.Issue 6 - Availability of alternate remedy of appeal:Ultimately, the Court concluded that since the Customs Act provided for an appeal against CESTAT orders related to the valuation of imported goods to be filed before the Supreme Court, the High Court could not entertain such appeals. The Court underscored that the availability of an equally efficacious alternate remedy of appeal precluded the need for writ jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petitions.