Court dismisses writ petitions, citing alternative remedy under Customs Act. Emphasizes statutory appeal route.

The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite arguments regarding the violation of natural justice and delay in decision-making, the court relied on legal precedents to support its decision. The petitioners were granted liberty to pursue the alternative remedy as per the law, following the principle that statutory appeal remedies should be availed when provided by law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the impugned order is appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether the writ petitions should be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.
3. Whether the principle of natural justice was violated in the present case.
4. Whether the delay in deciding the issue was justified.
5. Whether the petitions should be entertained or dismissed based on the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis:
1. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the appealability of the impugned order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued citing the Whirlpool Corporation case that alternative remedy is not a bar in certain circumstances, such as violation of fundamental rights or natural justice. The petitioner contended that as personal hearing was not granted before passing the impugned order and the value of goods was not assessed, the writ petitions should not be dismissed solely on the ground of an alternative remedy.

2. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the writ petitions in question should not be dismissed based on the availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances of the present case were distinct from previous cases where similar petitions were dismissed. The respondents, however, emphasized the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy as per legal precedents and urged the court not to entertain the petitions.

3. The issue of whether the principle of natural justice was violated in the present case was also deliberated. The petitioner claimed that personal hearing was not granted before passing the impugned order under Section 114 of the Customs Act, which raised concerns about procedural fairness. In contrast, the respondents argued that personal hearings were indeed conducted, as evidenced in the order-in-original, thus refuting the allegation of a violation of the principle of natural justice.

4. Addressing the delay in deciding the issue, the court noted that reasons for the delay had been provided in the relevant sections of the order. This acknowledgment aimed to justify the timeline of the decision-making process and ensure transparency in handling the case.

5. The court referred to various judgments, including Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited vs. Union of India and others, Hameed Kunju vs. Nizam, and Ansal Housing and Construction Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, to underscore the importance of availing statutory appeal remedies when provided by law. Considering the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, the court decided to dismiss the petitions, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the alternative remedy as advised by law.

---