Writ jurisdiction inappropriate for disputed customs and export compliance facts; parties sent back to statutory appellate remedy.

Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the dispute involved disputed facts on use of imported fabric in exported garments, alleged misrepresentation, and limitation. The court noted prima facie substance in the revenue's case that the demand arose from forfeiture of bond, and ruled that such contested issues should be examined by the statutory appellate authority rather than finally decided in writ proceedings. The writ court's order was therefore set aside, and the parties were relegated to the statutory remedy. Time spent in the writ proceedings was excluded for limitation purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court was justified in quashing the show-cause notice and consequential demand order and in entertaining the dispute instead of leaving the parties to the statutory appellate forum.

Analysis: The challenge involved factual questions as to whether the imported fabric had been used in the exported garments, whether there had been any misrepresentation, and whether the claim was barred by limitation. The Court found that there was at least prima facie substance in the revenue's stand that the demand arose out of forfeiture of bond, and that the contested questions were better left to be examined by the appellate authority under the statute. The Court therefore held that the writ proceedings ought not to have been allowed to continue to a final adjudication on these disputed issues.

Conclusion: The writ court's order could not be sustained, and the matter was to proceed before the statutory appellate authority.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ court's order was set aside, and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory remedy with exclusion of time spent in the writ proceedings for limitation purposes.

---