Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar where hardship and unequal duty treatment justify interim writ protection pending appeal.

Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ relief where exceptional hardship, alleged unequal treatment in duty levy, and the need for interim protection justify intervention pending a statutory appeal. The Court held the writ petition entertainable despite the Tribunal remedy, and directed continued clearance of the imported goods on the same conditional terms previously granted, while protecting revenue interests. The Court expressly left the classification and duty dispute to be decided by the Tribunal and did not examine the merits of the levy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an appellate remedy before the Tribunal in a dispute concerning levy of CVD on imported zircon sand. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to conditional clearance of the imported goods pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an appellate remedy before the Tribunal in a dispute concerning levy of CVD on imported zircon sand.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is ordinarily a relevant restraint on the exercise of writ jurisdiction, but it is not an absolute bar. Where the importer complains of unequal treatment in the levy of duty, and where the disputed levy affects business continuity while similarly placed importers elsewhere are not subjected to the same burden, the Court may intervene in the exercise of discretion. The Court also noted that the petitioners had already approached the Tribunal and that the challenge was not to a concluded failure to exhaust remedies, but to the need for interim protection during the pendency of the appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was entertainable in the facts of the case notwithstanding the alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to conditional clearance of the imported goods pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Court balanced the competing interests by considering the hardship to the petitioners if CVD had to be paid pending appeal, the risk of irrecoverability in the event of eventual success, and the need to protect the revenue. Since similar conditional relief had earlier been granted and accepted, the Court directed continuation of the same arrangement during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Court declined to comment on the merits of the classification dispute.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to clearance of the goods on the earlier conditional terms pending the Tribunal appeal.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed only to the extent of interim protection, with the dispute on classification and duty left to be decided by the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Alternative remedy does not bar writ relief where exceptional hardship, discriminatory treatment, and the need for interim protection justify exercise of discretionary jurisdiction pending statutory appeal.

---