Court directs swift conclusion of Customs proceedings, sets aside interim order.

The High Court set aside the interim order passed by the Single Judge and directed the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai to conclude the proceedings swiftly. The Court emphasized the availability of the statutory remedy for the writ petitioner and allowed the Writ Appeal.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to suspension orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin and Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition when a statutory remedy is available.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Suspension Orders Challenge
The respondent/writ petitioner challenged two orders: one passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin prohibiting the petitioner from operating as a Customs Broker within Cochin jurisdiction, and the second passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai suspending the petitioner's Customs Broker license under Regulation 19 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. The learned Single Judge modified the Mumbai Commissioner's order, restricting the suspension to operating at Cochin terminal only. The appellants' Standing Counsel argued that the Mumbai Commissioner's suspension order was valid under Regulation 19, and the writ petitioner had a statutory remedy to appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent's counsel contended that the suspension was due to the absence of a review order from the Cochin Customs office and that there were no irregularities in the petitioner's work elsewhere. The High Court found that the Mumbai Commissioner's order was passed after due process and within jurisdiction, and as a statutory remedy existed, the writ petition should not have been entertained by the Single Judge.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the High Court
The High Court examined the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when a statutory remedy is available. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, the High Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when a statutory remedy is provided, except in cases of violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to the Act's validity. Since a statutory remedy was available to the writ petitioner under Regulation 21 by appealing to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the High Court concluded that the Single Judge's interim order could not be upheld. Consequently, the High Court set aside the interim order, allowing the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai to proceed with finalizing the proceedings promptly. The High Court emphasized that the writ petitioner could avail the statutory remedy if advised to do so.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Writ Appeal, setting aside the interim order passed by the Single Judge and directing the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai to conclude the proceedings swiftly, while affirming the availability of the statutory remedy for the writ petitioner.

---