Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where the customs appellate mechanism is efficacious and can examine factual disputes.

Where the Customs Act and the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations form a complete code, an aggrieved customs broker must ordinarily pursue the statutory appeal under Section 129A before CESTAT instead of invoking Article 226. The Court treated that appellate remedy as efficacious and comprehensive because it could examine both factual disputes and the sufficiency of evidence. Although it made prima facie observations that no ex facie illegality or breach of natural justice was apparent, it declined writ jurisdiction and found the petition not maintainable because an effective alternative remedy existed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging revocation of the customs house agents licence was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal provided under the customs law.

Analysis: The order under challenge was passed in exercise of powers under the Customs House Agents Licence Regulations, 2004, which stood replaced by the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The Court noted that the Customs Act and the regulations framed thereunder constitute a complete code, and that Regulation 21 of the 2013 Regulations permits an aggrieved customs broker to prefer an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 before CESTAT. The Court held that this appellate remedy was efficacious and comprehensive, especially because factual issues and the sufficiency of evidence could be examined there. Though the Court made prima facie observations that no ex facie illegality or violation of natural justice was apparent, it declined to entertain the writ petition because an effective statutory remedy existed.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the facts of the case and was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy under a complete code, the High Court will ordinarily decline writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and require exhaustion of that remedy.

---