Writ jurisdiction and perverse factual findings: rectification rejection set aside where record supported separate valuation

A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable where the grievance was confined to a patent factual error and not a direct challenge to rate of duty or valuation, despite the statutory appeal route under section 130E of the Customs Act. The Tribunal's finding that the separate value of 16 mm TMT bars was unavailable on record was found contrary to the bill of lading and commercial invoice, which enabled the value to be worked out. That perverse factual finding made the rejection of rectification unsustainable, so the order was set aside and the rectification application restored for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable despite the statutory appeal route to the Supreme Court under section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 in a dispute said to relate to rate of duty or value of goods; and (ii) whether the Tribunal's finding that separate value of the 16 mm TMT bars was not available on record, and its consequent rejection of rectification, was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable despite the statutory appeal route to the Supreme Court under section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 in a dispute said to relate to rate of duty or value of goods.

Analysis: Though an appeal against an order relating to determination of rate of duty or value of goods for assessment lies to the Supreme Court under section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962, the controversy before the Court was not a direct challenge to the rate of duty or valuation determination. The grievance was confined to a factual error attributed to the Tribunal in stating that the separate value of the 16 mm TMT bars was not available on record. In that narrow setting, the Court held that the petitioner need not be relegated to the alternate statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's finding that separate value of the 16 mm TMT bars was not available on record, and its consequent rejection of rectification, was sustainable.

Analysis: The record already contained the bill of lading showing the quantity of the 16 mm TMT bars and the commercial invoice showing the price per metric tonne. On that basis, the value of the 16 mm TMT bars could be worked out. The Tribunal's statement that separate value was unavailable was therefore contrary to the record and amounted to a perverse factual finding. The rectification application was rejected on that incorrect premise, so the impugned order could not stand.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was unsustainable and was set aside, with the rectification application restored for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The Court interfered because the Tribunal's rejection of rectification rested on an incorrect factual premise, and the matter was sent back for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may entertain a challenge under Article 226 where the dispute is confined to a patent factual error and not the substantive determination of duty or valuation, and a finding that is demonstrably contrary to the record is perverse and liable to be set aside.

---