Customs proceedings against a firm and alternative remedy bar under Article 226(3) can sustain non-entertainment of writ relief.

A firm may be proceeded against under the Customs Act where notice is served on one partner, because a firm is treated as a person and each partner may act as an implied agent of the others under partnership principles. The commentary also notes that confiscation was treated as sustainable without an option of redemption where the goods fell within a prohibited or restricted import category and the statutory conditions were not met. It further explains that writ relief may be declined under Article 226(3) when an effective statutory revision remedy is available, making the alternative remedy bar operative.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether notice to one partner was sufficient to proceed against the firm and its partners under the Customs Act; (ii) whether the confiscation order was vitiated for failure to offer an option to redeem the goods in lieu of confiscation; (iii) whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether notice to one partner was sufficient to proceed against the firm and its partners under the Customs Act.

Analysis: A firm was treated as a "person" for the purposes of the Customs Act by applying the inclusive definition in the General Clauses Act. The law of partnership also supported service through a partner because each partner acts as an implied agent of the others. The objection that all partners had to be separately served was not substantiated and had not been pressed as a specific procedural defect before the earlier court.

Conclusion: The objection failed; the proceedings against the firm were not invalid for want of separate notice to every partner.

Issue (ii): whether the confiscation order was vitiated for failure to offer an option to redeem the goods in lieu of confiscation.

Analysis: Section 125 required an option to redeem where confiscation was authorised, but the court accepted the view that a restriction on import may operate as a prohibition if the statutory conditions are not complied with. On that basis, the goods were treated as falling within the class where confiscation could be ordered without accepting the appellants' contention that redemption was mandatory on the facts urged.

Conclusion: The objection failed; absence of a redemption option did not invalidate the confiscation order.

Issue (iii): whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The court held that the amended constitutional bar on entertaining a writ petition where an alternative revision remedy existed was attracted on the terms of the provision. The availability of revision under the Customs Act was treated as sufficient to support non-entertainment of the writ petition.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection succeeded; the writ petition was not entertainable in view of the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the customs adjudication failed, and the appeal stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A firm can be proceeded against as a person under the Customs Act through service on a partner acting within the law of partnership, and the availability of a statutory alternative remedy can bar writ relief under Article 226(3).

---