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 Government under Section 129DD; the revision process has a limited condonable window and cannot be bypassed by a writ. It records that an incorrect, belated appeal to the Tribunal was returned and not challenged, and that the claimed medical cause for delay (cervical cancer) lacked supporting medical records and did not justify missing the statutory forum. Consequently, unexplained delay barred writ jurisdiction and the challenge failed in favour of the revenue.

---

---

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.

---