Court allows late appeal challenging Customs order, excludes writ time from limit, directs speedy Tribunal review.

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging the Customs Commissioner's order, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Despite the expiration of the limitation period, the Court allowed the appellant to file the appeal by excluding the time spent on the writ petition from the calculation. The Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the appeal process due to the significant impact of the license revocation on the appellant's livelihood.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to Customs Commissioner's order, Alternative remedy available, Limitation period for filing appeal

Challenge to Customs Commissioner's order:
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs revoking the appellant's license as a Customs Broker and forfeiting the security deposit. The High Court noted that the appellant had an alternative remedy of appeal to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that there was no reason to entertain the appeal as the appellant could pursue the alternative remedy available under the Customs Brokers License Regulations, 2013 and the Customs Act, 1962.

Alternative remedy available:
The High Court emphasized that the appellant had the option to appeal to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Regulation 21 of the Customs Brokers License Regulations, 2013 along with Section 129(A) of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite the expiration of the limitation period for filing an appeal, the Court acknowledged that the writ petition was filed within a short period after the original order. The Court excluded the time spent pursuing the writ petition from the calculation of the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal, allowing the appellant to avail the alternative remedy.

Limitation period for filing appeal:
Although the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired, the Court considered the timeline of events. The appellant filed the writ petition shortly after the original order, and the appeal was lodged within the limitation period after the dismissal of the writ petition. The Court directed that the period from the filing of the writ petition until the judgment's receipt should be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing the statutory appeal. The Court instructed the Tribunal to expedite the appeal process, recognizing the impact of the license revocation on the appellant's livelihood. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ appeal, allowing the appellant to file an appeal before the Tribunal within the adjusted limitation period.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the availability of the alternative remedy to challenge the Customs Commissioner's order, considered the exclusion of time spent pursuing the writ petition in calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal, and directed the Tribunal to expedite the appeal process due to the appellant's livelihood being affected by the license revocation.

---