https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757259 Writ jurisdiction was not barred by alternate remedy because the statutory appeal under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 applies to penalty or confiscation orders, not to a standalone demand for interest. The adjudicating authority's powers under Sections 11, 13 and 17 were confined to contravention, penalty and confiscation, and did not extend to adjudicating or coercively enforcing an interest claim on money paid under a Supreme Court arrangement. The related directions for forfeiture of the bank guarantee and inclusion of the IEC number in the Denied Entity List were therefore without jurisdiction, while any lawful claim for interest could be pursued before the proper forum. en-us Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Aug 2024 14:08:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757259 Writ jurisdiction was not barred by alternate remedy because the statutory appeal under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 applies to penalty or confiscation orders, not to a standalone demand for interest. The adjudicating authority's powers under Sections 11, 13 and 17 were confined to contravention, penalty and confiscation, and did not extend to adjudicating or coercively enforcing an interest claim on money paid under a Supreme Court arrangement. The related directions for forfeiture of the bank guarantee and inclusion of the IEC number in the Denied Entity List were therefore without jurisdiction, while any lawful claim for interest could be pursued before the proper forum. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757259