TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Writ Petition Against Customs Order Dismissed: Seek Relief Through Statutory Appeal</h1> The High Court of Allahabad held that the writ petition challenging a provisional order by the Additional Customs Officer was not maintainable under ... Maintainability of petition - alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 , the position which emerged out is that when a person who is aggrieved by any order passed under the Customs Act, 1962 then he has an efficacious remedy available by way of filing an appeal before the appellate authority. In view of the abovesaid facts, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.02.2020 passed by Additional Customs Officer, Lucknow thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for provisional release of the vehicle then he has got alternative efficacious remedy available under the Act by filing an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 - the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall file an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the appellate authority. Issues:- Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned provisional order dated 18.02.2020 passed by Additional Customs Officer, Lucknow.Analysis:The High Court of Allahabad, in the present writ petition, addressed the issue of the maintainability of the petitioner's plea under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned provisional order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Additional Customs Officer, Lucknow. The respondent's counsel contended that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, making the writ petition not maintainable. The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that the order in question, which denied the provisional release of the petitioner's vehicle, was in contravention of Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962.Upon examining the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Court observed that any person aggrieved by an order under the Act has the right to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within a specified timeframe. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, if dissatisfied with the impugned order, had an alternative and efficacious remedy available by filing an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the Court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal route provided under the Customs Act, 1962.In light of the above analysis, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a directive for the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the appellate authority. The Court further instructed the petitioner to submit an application for the release of the vehicle along with the appeal. It was specified that the appellate authority should consider the application for release and issue an appropriate order before adjudicating on the appeal's merits. This comprehensive judgment by the High Court clarified the legal recourse available to the petitioner and provided a structured approach for addressing the issue at hand within the framework of the Customs Act, 1962.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
