Statutory appeal bars writ review where a Tribunal order affects customs valuation and related remand directions

Where a Tribunal order affects the valuation of imported goods and the statute provides an appeal to the Supreme Court, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked. Any objection that the remand directions exceeded the scope of the appeal is to be raised in the statutory appeal, not treated as a jurisdictional defect justifying writ interference. The High Court accordingly declined to entertain the writ petition and left the party to pursue the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the appellate remedy under Section 130-E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 when the Tribunal's order affected valuation of the imported goods.

Analysis: The dispute concerned the valuation of imported goods and the Tribunal's order would impact the transaction value. Since the statute provided an appeal to the Supreme Court against an order having such effect, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not to be invoked. The contention that the remand directions exceeded the scope of the appeal was treated as an issue that could be raised in the statutory appeal and not as a jurisdictional defect warranting writ interference.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was rejected, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction because an efficacious statutory remedy was available against the Tribunal's valuation-related order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an appeal to the Supreme Court against an order affecting valuation of imported goods, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226, and alleged errors within the Tribunal's remand directions are to be agitated in the statutory appeal.

---