Court stresses statutory appeal route over Writ Petition under Customs Act, emphasizing procedural compliance and discouraging misuse.

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging an order under the Customs Act, 1962, as the Petitioner failed to utilize the statutory appeal remedy provided by Section 129-A of the Act. Emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures, the Court highlighted that Article 226 of the Constitution should not be used to bypass such remedies unless exceptional circumstances exist. The judgment underscored the need to discourage the misuse of Article 226 for obtaining interim relief and prolonged litigation. The Court refrained from delving into the case's merits, urging parties to address factual disputes through the appropriate appellate process and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petition without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order passed under Customs Act, 1962 without availing statutory appeal remedy.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the Petitioner challenged an order passed by the Respondent under the Customs Act, 1962 through a Writ Petition without availing the statutory appeal remedy provided under Section 129-A of the Act. The Respondent had passed the order-in-original on 28.05.2015, and the Petitioner was entitled to prefer an appeal within three months from the date of receipt, i.e., by 08.06.2015. However, the Petitioner did not opt for the appeal but directly approached the High Court through the Writ Petition on 04.09.2015, challenging the said order.

The judgment extensively refers to the legal position explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Collector of Central Excise -vs- Dunlop India Limited [(1985) 1 SCC 260] regarding the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to bypass statutory procedures unless the statutory remedies are unsuitable for extraordinary situations or where the vires of the statute is in question. The Court noted that the Petitioner failed to provide an acceptable explanation for not utilizing the statutory appeal remedy available under the Act. It highlighted that the majority of petitions under Article 226 are filed to obtain interim orders and prolong proceedings, a practice that needs to be discouraged.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that it cannot be entertained due to the Petitioner's failure to avail the statutory appeal remedy. The Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case, emphasizing that disputed questions of fact should be adjudicated through the proper appellate process. The judgment concluded by closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition without imposing any costs on either party.

---