Statutory appellate remedy bars writ jurisdiction when Customs Act appeals remain available and unexhausted.

A writ petition challenging an order under the Customs Act was held not maintainable where the petitioner had already pursued the statutory appellate remedy and another appeal remained available before the CESTAT. The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked when the statute provides an effective remedy for enforcement of the right, particularly after the party has chosen the statutory mechanism and an adverse appellate order has been passed. The writ petition was dismissed in view of the unexhausted appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner had already pursued the statutory appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962 and a further statutory appeal was still available.

Analysis: The writ challenge was directed against an order passed under Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had earlier been permitted to pursue the statutory remedy, had availed the appeal, and had suffered an adverse appellate order. The Court relied on the settled principle that where a statute creates a right and also provides the remedy or procedure for enforcement, the party must ordinarily resort to that remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction. The existence of a further appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 129AI of the Customs Act, 1962 reinforced the view that the writ petition should not be entertained.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in view of the available and unexhausted statutory remedies under the Customs Act, 1962.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an effective appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked, especially after the party has already resorted to the statutory mechanism and a further appeal remains available.

---