https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358499 The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the revocation of a Customs Broker Licence, imposition of penalties, and forfeiture of security deposit. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy through the CESTAT, Madras, citing precedents that litigants must exhaust statutory remedies before invoking Article 226 jurisdiction. The appellant was directed to appeal to the CESTAT within three weeks. The judgment highlighted the principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted before seeking judicial review, except in exceptional cases. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Apr 2018 06:09:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358499 The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the revocation of a Customs Broker Licence, imposition of penalties, and forfeiture of security deposit. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy through the CESTAT, Madras, citing precedents that litigants must exhaust statutory remedies before invoking Article 226 jurisdiction. The appellant was directed to appeal to the CESTAT within three weeks. The judgment highlighted the principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted before seeking judicial review, except in exceptional cases. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358499