Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where drawback rejection orders are appealable and appellate relief is efficacious.

Orders rejecting drawback claims under Rule 5 of the Re-Export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 were appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Because the petitioner could raise all grounds before the appellate authority and the statutory appeal was an effective alternative remedy, the writ court applied the normal restraint against entertaining writ petitions where an efficacious appeal exists. The writ petitions were therefore held not maintainable and dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal provided under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the orders rejecting drawback claims under Rule 5 of the Re-Export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995.

Analysis: The impugned orders were appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner could raise all grounds before the appellate authority, and the appellate remedy was held to be not only available but also efficacious. In view of the self-imposed restraint ordinarily followed in the exercise of writ jurisdiction when an effective alternative remedy exists, the writ court declined to entertain the petitions.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were held to be not maintainable and were dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

---