https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798545 Statutory appellate remedy against customs confiscation and penalty orders remains effective despite a mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the penalty. The pre-deposit requirement alone does not justify writ intervention where adjudication has addressed the factual claim that the seized item was personal jewellery and found it to be a gold strip fashioned as a kada. Fact-specific precedent does not require writ jurisdiction whenever an appeal is available. Time spent pursuing writ proceedings may be claimed for exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act before the appellate authority; the petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal. en-us Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2026 09:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798545 Statutory appellate remedy against customs confiscation and penalty orders remains effective despite a mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the penalty. The pre-deposit requirement alone does not justify writ intervention where adjudication has addressed the factual claim that the seized item was personal jewellery and found it to be a gold strip fashioned as a kada. Fact-specific precedent does not require writ jurisdiction whenever an appeal is available. Time spent pursuing writ proceedings may be claimed for exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act before the appellate authority; the petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798545