2026 (3) TMI 260 - HC - Customs

Statutory appellate remedy: petitioner must prefer an appeal under the Customs Act; writ not used to bypass appeal.

The article addresses availability of a statutory appellate remedy against an Assistant Commissioner's order permitting release of seized perishable ... Appealability of order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 - availability of alternative remedy by appeal - claim for interest on delayed payment. Appealability of order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 9th February, 2026 permitting payment of the tariff value to the petitioner is appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal. - HELD THAT: - The Division Bench judgment dated 14th March, 2023 modified the Tribunal's order by granting the petitioner liberty to apply to the concerned Customs authority for payment of the value of seized perishable goods, leaving the exercise of authority to the Customs administration. Pursuant to that liberty the petitioner filed an application which was decided by the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 9th February, 2026 permitting payment of the tariff value. The Court held that the Assistant Commissioner's order is an order passed by the Customs authority in the exercise of statutory power and is therefore an appealable order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Because an alternate statutory remedy in the form of an appeal is available, the writ petition was not entertained on the merits; the petitioner was directed to prefer an appeal under Section 128 and may raise claim for interest before the appellate authority. The Court thus treated the availability of the appeal as the appropriate forum for contesting the terms of the Assistant Commissioner's order, including interest. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11] Assistant Commissioner's order dated 9th February, 2026 is appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962; the petitioner may prefer an appeal claiming interest and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Final Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed of on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner's order permitting payment is appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962; the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority and may claim interest therein. Issues: Whether the petitioner has a remedy to prefer an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 9th February, 2026 of the Assistant Commissioner and whether the writ petition should be entertained or disposed of in light of the availability of that remedy.Analysis: The Court examined the Division Bench judgment dated 14th March, 2023 in CUSTA 22 of 2022 which granted the petitioner liberty to apply to the concerned Customs authority for payment of the value of seized perishable goods and left the matter of payment to be processed in accordance with law. Pursuant to that liberty, the petitioner applied and the Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 9th February, 2026 permitting release of Rs.1,45,61,332/-. The Court observed that the Assistant Commissioner's order is an order passed by the concerned authority in exercise of statutory powers and that the statute provides an appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Given the availability of that specific statutory appeal remedy to challenge the Assistant Commissioner's order and to claim interest, the writ petition is not the appropriate forum to bypass the statutory appellate process.Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed of by recording that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 9th February, 2026 and to claim interest before the Appellate Authority; the writ petition is not entertained further.