Alternate remedy under Customs Act bars writ relief where statutory appeal and limitation were not pursued.

Writ jurisdiction was held ordinarily unavailable where an efficacious statutory appeal exists under the Customs Act. The impugned order was appealable to the Commissioner (Appeals), and the petitioners had not pursued that remedy within the normal or extended limitation period. No exceptional circumstance was shown to justify bypassing the appellate forum, so the recognised exceptions to the alternate-remedy rule were not satisfied. The writ petitions were therefore not maintainable and were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the expiry of the prescribed limitation period.

Analysis: The impugned order was amenable to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under the statutory scheme. The petitioners did not invoke that remedy within the normal period or the extended period of limitation, and no compelling circumstance was shown to justify bypassing the appellate forum. The Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be exercised where an efficacious alternate remedy exists, and the recognised exceptions to that rule were not made out on the facts.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and were liable to be rejected.

---