2026 (3) TMI 214 - HC - Customs

Statutory revision remedy precludes writ relief where delay in seeking prescribed revision is unexplained; medical grounds insufficient.

The note addresses refusal to entertain a writ challenging seizure-release outcomes where the prescribed statutory remedy is revision to the Central ... Limitation and condonation of delay - condonation beyond 90 plus 90 days for filing revision under Section 129DD - forum conveniens - proper forum where the statutory remedy is revision - failure to establish medical incapacity. Proper forum where the statutory remedy is revision under Section 129DD - HELD THAT: - The appellate order of the Commissioner of Customs was appealable by way of statutory revision to the Central Government under the statutory scheme. The Tribunal (Cestat) correctly treated the appeal as defective because the prescribed remedy was revision under Section 129DD, and the appellant had no proper statutory basis to proceed before the Tribunal. The Court observed that the Tribunal's order returning the appeal was not challenged and that the Tribunal was not a proper forum for the grievance asserted by the appellant. [Paras 3] The Cestat was not the appropriate forum and its return of the appeal as defective was proper. Condonation beyond 90 plus 90 days for filing revision under Section 129DD - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the timeline of the original adjudication and the first appellate order and noted the statutory limitation for filing revision. The first appellate order dated 01.04.2024 required revision to be filed within ninety days with a further condonable period of ninety days; the Court held that condonation beyond that combined period is not permissible. The appellant's belated approach to the Tribunal and subsequent delay in instituting proceedings indicated noncompliance with the statutory time limits. [Paras 4, 5, 7] The statutory time limits for revision had been exceeded and no further condonation was available. Insufficiency of asserted medical incapacity to justify delay in instituting statutory remedy - HELD THAT: - The Court scrutinised the medical records and the affidavits relied upon by the appellant. The appellant had asserted treatment for cervical cancer but the records showed treatment for cervicitis and a laparoscopic surgery; the writ pleadings did not disclose the claimed diagnosis. Given the absence of credible medical justification and the further delay in filing the writ petition after the Tribunal's order, the Court found the reasons inadequate to warrant intervention or to condone the delay. [Paras 6, 8] The medical grounds advanced were factually erroneous and insufficient to justify the delay; they did not entitle the appellant to relief. Final Conclusion: The High Court found no error in the writ court's conclusion: the Tribunal was not the proper forum, the statutory time limits for revision had been exceeded with no further condonation available, and the medical justification for delay was inadequate; the writ appeal was dismissed and the impugned order affirmed. Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the appellate order and seeking release of seized goods could be entertained despite the delay in approaching the statutory revisional remedy under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether the appellant's medical grounds justified condonation of delay.Analysis: The appellate remedy against the first appellate order is by revision to the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, to be filed within 90 days with an additional condonable period of 90 days; no condonation beyond the statutory 90+90 days is permissible. The appellant instituted a belated appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which was returned as defective since revision under Section 129DD was the proper remedy; that order was not challenged. Subsequent initiation of the writ petition occurred only after further delay. The medical justification advanced (diagnosis of cervical cancer) is not supported by the record; available medical records indicate treatment for cervicitis and a laparoscopic surgery, which did not satisfactorily explain the delay in approaching the appropriate statutory forum.Conclusion: The delay in pursuing the prescribed statutory remedy was not satisfactorily explained and the writ petition could not be entertained; the Writ Court's dismissal of the challenge is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed in favour of the Revenue.