https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775487 The HC held that the petition challenging absolute confiscation and penalty for smuggling was not maintainable due to availability of a statutory appellate remedy. The petitioner played an active role in facilitating the smuggling scheme, including destruction of evidence, negating any violation of natural justice. The court found no grounds to entertain a writ petition under Article 226, referencing the Supreme Court's criteria for such petitions. Although the limitation period for appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act had expired, the HC allowed the petitioner one month to file the appeal with requisite pre-deposit, directing that the appeal be heard on merits and not dismissed on limitation grounds. The petition was disposed accordingly. en-us Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:39:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775487 The HC held that the petition challenging absolute confiscation and penalty for smuggling was not maintainable due to availability of a statutory appellate remedy. The petitioner played an active role in facilitating the smuggling scheme, including destruction of evidence, negating any violation of natural justice. The court found no grounds to entertain a writ petition under Article 226, referencing the Supreme Court's criteria for such petitions. Although the limitation period for appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act had expired, the HC allowed the petitioner one month to file the appeal with requisite pre-deposit, directing that the appeal be heard on merits and not dismissed on limitation grounds. The petition was disposed accordingly. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775487