Customs Broker association membership becomes mandatory in the operating jurisdiction, with exclusive membership and limited compliance-time relaxatio...
Maintainability of petition before HC - High Court has rejected the contention on alternate remedy because Respondent No.2 (Adjudicating authority) has not even examined the merits of the case when there was a binding order of CESTAT - On facts, the High Court was right in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the availability of statutory remedy. - SC
Maintainability of petition before HC - High Court has rejected the contention on alternate remedy because Respondent No.2 (Adjudicating authority) has not even examined the merits of the case when there was a binding order of CESTAT - On facts, the High Court was right in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the availability of statutory remedy. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.