https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799201 Article 226 jurisdiction ordinarily should not be invoked when the Customs Act provides an efficacious appellate remedy, particularly where the challenge requires assessment of disputed facts and merits. The mandatory pre-deposit required for entertaining a customs appeal cannot be bypassed merely on financial-hardship grounds. Objections relating to cross-examination, evidentiary value and retraction of statements, confiscation, and penalty require determination by the statutory appellate forum. The available appellate remedy must therefore be pursued, with all merits issues remaining open for independent consideration. en-us Wed, 16 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Sep 2026 07:32:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799201 Article 226 jurisdiction ordinarily should not be invoked when the Customs Act provides an efficacious appellate remedy, particularly where the challenge requires assessment of disputed facts and merits. The mandatory pre-deposit required for entertaining a customs appeal cannot be bypassed merely on financial-hardship grounds. Objections relating to cross-examination, evidentiary value and retraction of statements, confiscation, and penalty require determination by the statutory appellate forum. The available appellate remedy must therefore be pursued, with all merits issues remaining open for independent consideration. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 16 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799201