https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42975 A writ challenge to a customs penalty order was found inappropriate because the Customs Act, 1962 provided a complete appellate hierarchy through the Collector (Appeals), Tribunal, and Supreme Court in appropriate cases. As the dispute did not raise vires or legislative competence and concerned matters the statutory authorities were competent to decide, resort to Article 226 to bypass those remedies was held unwarranted. On interim relief, the court found no sufficient prima facie basis to continue protection against recovery of penalty under Section 116, particularly in light of earlier decisions supporting levy in similar circumstances. The interim injunction was vacated and the matter was left to the statutory remedies. en-us Tue, 25 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:36:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42975 A writ challenge to a customs penalty order was found inappropriate because the Customs Act, 1962 provided a complete appellate hierarchy through the Collector (Appeals), Tribunal, and Supreme Court in appropriate cases. As the dispute did not raise vires or legislative competence and concerned matters the statutory authorities were competent to decide, resort to Article 226 to bypass those remedies was held unwarranted. On interim relief, the court found no sufficient prima facie basis to continue protection against recovery of penalty under Section 116, particularly in light of earlier decisions supporting levy in similar circumstances. The interim injunction was vacated and the matter was left to the statutory remedies. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 25 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42975