Statutory appeal remedy prevails over writ jurisdiction where cross-examination and evidentiary reliance raise mixed questions of fact and law.

Where an effective statutory appeal is available, a writ petition challenging an order in original is ordinarily not entertained, especially where the grievance concerns reliance on evidence, denial of cross-examination, and the sufficiency of material, all of which may involve mixed questions of fact and law better left to the appellate forum. Limited indulgence may still be granted for pre-deposit, and the petitioner was allowed to pursue the appeal on a modified deposit schedule. The writ was disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the impugned order, while preserving the right to appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition challenging the order in original was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy and the allegation of denial of cross-examination; (ii) whether limited indulgence could be granted in the matter of pre-deposit for filing the appeal.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition challenging the order in original was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy and the allegation of denial of cross-examination.

Analysis: The impugned order was amenable to an appeal under the Customs Act. The request for cross-examination was directed against a co-delinquent whose statement was relied upon in the same proceedings, and the wider challenge regarding the extent of reliance on that statement and the sufficiency of other evidence involved mixed questions of fact and law. Such questions were held to be matters for the appellate forum and not a basis for bypassing the alternative statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): whether limited indulgence could be granted in the matter of pre-deposit for filing the appeal.

Analysis: Considering the request for time and the financial difficulty stated, limited relief was granted regarding the statutory deposit required for the appeal. The petitioner was permitted to proceed with the appeal on the modified deposit schedule set out in the order.

Conclusion: Limited relief on pre-deposit was granted to enable the appeal to be filed and entertained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of without adjudication on the merits of the impugned order, while preserving the petitioner's right to pursue the statutory appeal with concessional deposit terms.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available, disputes involving reliance on evidence, denial of cross-examination, and the sufficiency of material against a noticee may be left to the appellate forum and need not be examined in writ jurisdiction.

---