Statutory appellate remedy bars writ challenge to Customs advance ruling order; writ petition held not maintainable.

Where the Customs Act provides a specific statutory appeal against an adverse Customs Authority for Advance Ruling order, an aggrieved party must ordinarily pursue that appellate remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction. The Madras HC held that the existence of an effective appeal under Section 28-KA barred the writ petition, and the petition was therefore not maintainable. The court dismissed the writ challenge on the ground that the statutory remedy had to be exhausted first.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling order was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under Section 28-KA of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The Court held that where the Customs Act provides a specific appellate remedy against the impugned order, the party aggrieved must pursue that remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.

---