Court dismisses writ petition seeking mandamus for goods release, directs petitioner to exhaust CESTAT remedy first.

The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus for the release of goods covered under a Bill of Entry. The court held that the petitioner should exhaust the remedy available before the CESTAT, where an appeal challenging the authorities' decisions had been filed but not yet numbered. The judge emphasized that the petitioner must pursue relief through the CESTAT before approaching the High Court. The writ petition was not entertained, and the petitioner was granted liberty to seek interim relief before the CESTAT without costs imposed.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeking mandamus for release of goods covered under a Bill of Entry, challenge against order rejecting declared value, appeal before CESTAT pending, petitioner seeking release of goods through writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the court seeking a mandamus to direct the release of goods covered under a specific Bill of Entry. The Adjudicating Authority had previously passed an order rejecting the self-assessed value declared by the Importer/petitioner for the same Bill of Entry, instructing a re-assessment of the goods at an enhanced unit price value. Subsequently, the petitioner appealed this decision before the First Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed on 14.02.2017. Dissatisfied with the concurrent decisions of the Original Authority and the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner further appealed to the CESTAT, although the appeal had not been numbered at the time of filing the writ petition.

The court noted that the petitioner had chosen to pursue an appeal before the CESTAT challenging the authorities' decisions. The judge opined that the petitioner could not seek relief through the writ petition while the appeal before the CESTAT was pending and had not been numbered yet. The court emphasized that the petitioner should exhaust the remedy available before the CESTAT, including seeking interim relief if applicable, before approaching the High Court. Therefore, the judge decided not to entertain the writ petition, not based on the merits of the case, but due to the petitioner's obligation to pursue the remedy before the CESTAT, where an appeal had already been filed.

Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to file an appropriate application for interim relief before the CESTAT. The judge clarified that any such application would be considered on its own merits and in accordance with the law. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were imposed in this matter.

---