1999 (7) TMI 71 - SC - Customs

Writ challenge to additional customs duty levy u/s3 rejected, as statutory appeal remedy existed and no vires challenge raised.

A writ challenging levy of additional duty of customs under s.3 of the Tariff Act was held not maintainable where there was no challenge to the vires of ... Writ petition - levy of additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Tariff Act - Alternate remedy - interpretation of the provisions of the statute - HELD THAT:- In any case, when there is no challenge to the validity of any statutory provision, we see no reason as to why a writ petition should have been filed byepassing the alternative remedy which is provided under the statute. On this short ground we dismiss this appeal, vacate the interim orders, direct the payment of the balance amount of duty along with interest @ 15% per annum with yearly rests. In view of the decision of this Court in M/s. Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works & Another v. U.O.I. [1985 (6) TMI 178 - SUPREME COURT], we see no reason to interfere in this appeal. The same is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to raise any other contention before the Department in an appeal, if the appeal is filed within four weeks from today. The interim orders of stay are vacated. The balance amount of duty should be paid within four weeks from today along with interest @ 15% per annum with yearly rests. If the appeal is filed within four weeks the delay will be condoned by the Department. There will be no order as to costs. Issues involved: Challenge to levy of additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Tariff Act, interpretation of statutory provisions, availability of alternative remedy.1. Challenge to Levy of Additional Duty of Customs: The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the levy of additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Tariff Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition based on previous decisions. The matter was represented to be similar to another case pending in the Supreme Court, but it was later delinked as the points involved were different.2. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions: The Supreme Court found that the question in this appeal revolves around interpreting the provisions of the statute. Since there was no challenge to the validity of any statutory provision, the Court dismissed the appeal, vacated interim orders, and directed the payment of the balance amount of duty along with interest at 15% per annum with yearly rests. The appellant was advised to avail of any statutory remedy available.3. Availability of Alternative Remedy: The Court emphasized that when there is an alternative remedy provided under the statute, there is no justification for filing a writ petition bypassing that remedy. The appellant was given the opportunity to file an appeal within four weeks, with the Department willing to condone any delay in filing the appeal.4. Separate Judgement - Special Leave Petition (C) 2152/1983: Leave was granted in this case. Following a previous decision of the Court, the appeal was dismissed with liberty for the appellant to raise other contentions before the Department in an appeal, provided it is filed within four weeks. Interim orders of stay were vacated, and the balance amount of duty was directed to be paid within four weeks along with interest.5. Separate Judgement - Civil Appeal Nos. 952-955 of 1987: These appeals were allowed in view of a decision of the Court. The Court ordered the refund of the tax paid as a result of the assessment, along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund, based on interim orders passed earlier.