TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. 2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of Order-in-Original No. 115/ADC/ICD/PPG/2018 dated 26.03.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Patparganj, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'Order-in-Original'], whereby, inter alia, a penalty of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- was imposed upon the Petitioner under Section 114 of the Act. The Petitioner also seeks a direction for permitting cross-examination of certain persons whose statements were relied upon by the adjudicating authority. The Petitioner further challenges the Order-in-Appeal dated 10.12.2020, whereby the appeal preferred by him under Section 128 of the Act was rejected for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. The controversy arises out of an investigation conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [hereinafter referred to as 'DRI'] concerning an alleged attempt to export red sanders wood in the guise of carpets. On 14.11.2014, the DRI intercepted a container bearing No. CRXU3319411, which had been loaded on truck bearin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred an appeal under Section 128 of the Act before the Commissioner (Appeals). Along with the appeal, the Petitioner sought waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit. 9. The Commissioner (Appeals), after examining the appeal, noticed that the Petitioner had not deposited the requisite 7.5% of the penalty in terms of Section 129E of the Act. A personal hearing was also afforded to the Petitioner. During the hearing, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that the requisite deposit had not been made and that an application had been filed seeking waiver thereof. 10. By Order-in-Appeal dated 10.12.2020, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the deposit contemplated under Section 129E of the Act was a statutory requirement and, in the absence of such deposit, the appeal could not be entertained. The appeal was consequently rejected without examination of the merits of the challenge to the Order-in-Original. 11. The Petitioner has thereafter approached this Court by way of the present Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: 12. Contentions on behalf of the Petitioner: 12.1. It was submitted that the Orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner's appeal against the Order-in-Original was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) solely on account of his failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Act. 13.2. It was submitted that the requirement of pre-deposit of 7.5% of the disputed penalty is statutory and mandatory. The Commissioner (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to waive the said requirement. The Petitioner, therefore, cannot bypass the statutory scheme merely on the ground that he is unable to make the requisite pre-deposit. 13.3. It was further submitted that the Petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT'] against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It was contended that this Court ought not to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Act provides a complete mechanism for redressal of the Petitioner's grievances. 13.4. On merits, it was submitted that the investigation revealed the Petitioner's involvement in the attempted clandestine export of red sanders wood. The statements of Sukhwinder Singh, G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....28 of the Act. A further statutory remedy is also available before the Appellate Tribunal against the orders specified under the Act. 17. It is equally well settled that the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar on the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is undoubtedly wide. However, where the statute provides an efficacious mechanism for redressal of grievances, the writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised so as to bypass the statutory framework, particularly where the controversy involves examination of disputed questions of fact or merits which fall within the domain of the statutory appellate authorities. 18. In the present case, the Petitioner seeks to assail the Order-in-Original on several grounds, including the alleged denial of an opportunity to cross-examine certain persons, the evidentiary value of the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act, the effect of the alleged retraction of the Petitioner's statement, the absence of independent material establishing the Petitioner's involvement and the legality of the confiscation of certa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the mere assertion of violation of the principles of natural justice does not, by itself, require this Court to entertain a writ petition notwithstanding the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Petitioner was entitled to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon, and what would be the consequence of the alleged denial thereof, are matters which are intrinsically connected with the merits of the adjudication and are required to be considered by the competent statutory forum. 26. This Court, therefore, does not consider it appropriate to express any opinion on the merits of the Petitioner's contentions regarding the alleged denial of cross-examination, the evidentiary value of the statements recorded during the investigation, the alleged retraction of the Petitioner's statement or the legality of the findings recorded in the Order-in-Original. Any observation by this Court on such issues may prejudice the consideration of the matter by the competent statutory forum. 27. In the considered opinion of this Court, no exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated which would warrant ....